THE  BOHLEN  LECTURES  FOR  1906 


THE 

SAMARITANS 

The  Earliest  Jewish  Sect 

Their  History,  Theology 
and  Literature 


y    BY 

JAMES  ALAN  MONTGOMERY,  Ph.D. 

Professor  in  Old  Testament  Literature  and  Language, 
Philadelphia  Divinity  School 


1907 
THE  JOHN  C.  WINSTON  CO. 

PHILADELPHIA 


Copyright  1907 

BY 

The  John  C.  Winston  Co. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped 

January  1907 
Published  February  1907 


TO  MY  WIFE 

WHO  FOR  MY  SAKE  HAS  BORNE  THE 
BURDEN    AND     HEAT     OF     THE    DAY 


THE  JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP. 


John  Bohlen,  who  died  in  Philadelphia  on  the  26th  day 
of  April,  1874,  bequeathed  to  trustees  a  fund  of  One  Hun- 
dred Thousand  Dollars,  to  be  distributed  to  religious  and 
charitable  objects  in  accordance  with  the  well-known  wishes 
of  the  testator. 

By  a  deed  of  trust,  executed  June  2,  1875,  tne  trustees, 
under  the  will  of  Mr.  Bohlen,  transferred  and  paid  over 
to  "  The  Rector,  Church  Wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  Philadelphia,"  in  trust,  a  sum 
of  money  for  certain  designated  purposes,  out  of  which  fund 
the  sum  of  Ten  Thousand  Dollars  was  set  apart  for  the  en- 
dowment of  The  John  Bohlen  Lectureship,  upon  the 
following  terms  and  conditions : 

"  The  money  shall  be  invested  in  good  substantial  and 
safe  securities,  and  held  in  trust  for  a  fund  to  be  called 
The  John  Bohlen  Lectureship,  and  the  income  shall  be  ap- 
plied annually  to  the  payment  of  a  qualified  person,  whether 
clergyman  or  layman,  for  the  delivery  and  publication  of  at 
least  one  hundred  copies  of  two  or  more  lecture  sermons. 
These  lectures  shall  be  delivered  at  such  time  and  place,  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  as  the  persons  nominated  to  ap- 
point the  lecturer  shall  from  time  to  time  determine,  giving 
at  least  six  months'  notice  to  the  person  appointed  to  deliver 
the  same  when  the  same  may  conveniently  be  done,  and  in 
no  case  selecting  the  same  person  as  lecturer  a  second  time 
within  a  period  of  five  years.  The  payment  shall  be  made 
to  said  lecturer,  after  the  lectures  have  been  printed  and  re- 


viii  THE  JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP 

ceived  by  the  trustees,  of  all  the  income  for  the  year  de- 
rived from  said  fund,  after  defraying  the  expense  of  print- 
ing the  lectures  and  the  other  incidental  expenses  attending 
the  same. 

"  The  subject  of  such  lectures  shall  be  such  as  is  within 
the  terms  set  forth  in  the  will  of  the  Rev.  John  Bampton, 
for  the  delivery  of  what  are  known  as  the  '  Bampton  Lec- 
tures,' at  Oxford,  or  any  other  subject  distinctively  con- 
nected with  or  relating  to  the  Christian  Religion. 

"  The  lecturer  shall  be  appointed  annually  in  the  month 
of  May,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  can  conveniently  be  done, 
by  the  persons  who  for  the  time  being  shall  hold  the  offices 
of  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  Diocese 
in  which  is  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  the  Rector  of 
said  Church ;  the  Professor  of  Biblical  Learning,  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Systematic  Divinity,  and  the  Professor  of  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  in  the  Divinity  School  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  Philadelphia. 

"  In  case  either  of  said  offices  are  vacant,  the  others  may 
nominate  the  lecturer." 

Under  this  trust,  the  Rev.  James  A.  Montgomery,  Ph.  D., 
was  appointed  to  deliver  the  lectures  for  the  year  1906. 


PREFACE. 

The  following  work  has  grown  out  of  the  author's  desire 
to  gain  an  answer  for  the  question :  Who  are  the  Samar- 
itans? He  publishes  it  in  the  expectation  that  the  same 
question  may  be  of  interest  to  the  intelligent  public,  while 
withal  he  hopes  that  the  collection  of  material  here  pre- 
sented may  be  of  use  to  the  scholarly  world. 

In  large  part  this  work  is  a  digest  of  the  labors  of  many 
scholars  for  over  three  centuries ;  in  so  far  it  is  the  result  of 
painstaking  investigation  in  a  widely  scattered  and  recondite 
literature.  At  the  same  time,  while  he  has  made  no  pre- 
tence at  original  hypotheses,  the  author  believes  that  he  pre- 
sents ampler  treatment  of  the  subject  as  a  whole  than  has 
yet  been  attempted.  The  difficult  problem  of  the  origin  of 
the  Samaritan  sect  has  been  here  discussed  in  the  light  of 
modern  criticism  as  a  preliminary  to  the  subsequent  history. 
Their  own  Chronicles  have  been  carefully  explored  for  his- 
torical data,  illustrating  or  adding  to  the  foreign  sources 
which  up  to  within  fifty  years  have  been  almost  the  sole 
means  of  information.  The  Jewish,  Christian,  and  Muslim 
references  have  been  collated,  and  a  digested  treatment  of 
the  Talmudic  references  is  offered.  The  Samaritan  the- 
ology has  been  treated  formally  and  at  some  length,  with  a 
full  apparatus  of  citations  to  the  literature,  especially  the 
Liturgy,  the  theological  importance  of  which  has  hardly  yet 
been  recognized.  The  Chapter  on  the  Literature  seemed  a 
necessary  supplement,  although  it  can  give  only  an  outline 
of  the  results  of  the  many  specialists  who  have  worked  in 
this  field.  In  fact,  Samaritan  study  still  lies  in  the  primary 
stage  of  manuscript  investigation,  and  the  student  who  has 

ix 


x  PREFACE 

not  access  to  the  original  material  must  recognize  that  at 
best  he  can  be  only  an  encyclopaedist  in  the  subject. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  constant  references  to  the  literature, 
and  especially  the  Bibliography  at  the  end  of  the  volume, 
will  be  of  use  to  students.  The  history  of  Samaritana  gives 
many  instances  where  first-rate  scholars  have  entirely  ig- 
nored the  labors  of  other  specialists  in  the  same  lines. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  Professors  Hilprecht,  Jastrow,  and 
Clay,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  for  their  great  and 
unfailing  kindness  to  me  in  my  course  for  the  Doctorate  in 
Philosophy,  the  first  Chapters  of  the  present  work  contain- 
ing the  material  presented  as  my  thesis  for  the  degree.  I 
have  also  to  express  my  deep  sense  of  obligation  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Bohlen  Lectureship,  for  the  dignity  they 
have  conferred  upon  me  in  appointing  me  as  Lecturer  on 
that  honorable  foundation.  To  my  friends,  Prof.  W.  Max 
Miiller  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Julius  H.  Greenstone,  my  thanks 
are  due  for  much  kind  assistance,  and  I  am  deeply  indebted 
to  Newcomb  B.  Thompson,  Esq.,  for  his  critical  reading  of 
both  MS  and  proof. 

James  A.  Montgomery. 

Philadelphia  Divinity  School. 
July  28,  1906. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    The  Re-Discovery  of  the  Samaritans i 

II.    The  Land  of  Samaria  and  the  City  of  Shechem     .     .     13 

III.  The   Modern    Samaritans 24 

IV.  The  Origin  of  the  Samaritan  Sect 46 

1.  To  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem,  586  b.  c 46 

2.  From  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  to  the  Beginning  of  the 
Greek    Age 57 

V.  The  Samaritans  Under  the  Hellenic  Empire      .        .     .     75 

VI.    The  Samaritans  Under  the  Roman  Empire      .      ...  82 

1.  To   the    Destruction  of  Jerusalem,   a.  d.    70     .     .      .  82 

2.  From  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  the  Christian- 
ization  of  the  Empire 89 

3.  From  the  Reign  of  Constantine  to  the  Rise  of  Islam  98 

VII.    The  Samaritans  Under  Islam 125 

VIII.    The  Geographical  Distribution  of  the  Samaritans     .     .  143 

1.  The  Samaritans  at  Home 143 

2.  The  Samaritans  in  Diaspora 148 

IX.    The  Samaritans  in  the  Apocryphal  Literature,  the  New 

Testament,   and   Josephus 154 

X.    The  Samaritans  in  the  Talmuds  and  Other  Rabbinic 
Literature 165 

XI.    The  Talmudic  Booklet,  Masseket  Kutim 196 

XII.    The  Theology     of     the     Samaritans 204 

1.  Introductory 204 

2.  The  Samaritan  Creed 207 

3.  The  Belief  in  God;   Angels,    Creation,  etc.     .     .     .  207 

4.  Moses ;  the  Patriarchs,  Priests,  Prophets     ....  225 

5.  The  Law 232 

6.  Gerizim 234 

7.  Eschatology 239 

xi 


xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XIII.  The  Samaritan   Sects  ;   Gnosticism 252 

1.  The   Samaritan    Sects .  252 

2.  Simon    Magus ;    Gnosticism,    Kabbalism     ....  265 

XIV.  The  Languages  and  Literature  of  the  Samaritans    .     .  270 

1.  The  Hebrew  Language 270 

2.  The  Aramaic  Language 270 

3.  The  Arabic  Language 272 

4.  The  Samaritan    Script         272 

5.  The  Samaritan  Hellenistic  Literature 283 

6.  The  Samaritan  Hebrew  Pentateuch 286 

7.  The  Targum 290 

8.  The  Arabic  Translations  of  the   Pentateuch     .     .     .  293 

9.  Commentaries    and   other    Religious    Treatises     .     .  294 

10.  The  Liturgy 297 

11.  The   Chronicles 300 

12.  Scientific  Works 311 

13.  Resume  of  the  Literary  Activity  of  the   Samaritans  313 

Additional    Notes 317 

A.  The  Name  "  Samaria  " 317 

B.  The  Names  of  the  Samaritans 318 

C.  The  Fire-Purifications  of  the  Samaritans  ....  319 

D.  The  Alleged  Dove-Cult  of  the  Samaritans       .      .     .  320 

Bibliography 322 

Index  of  Biblical  References 347 

Index  of  Talmudic  Citations 350 

Index  of  Literary  References  to  the  Samaritans 351 

General    Index 352 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

The   Vale   of   Shechem Frontispiece 

Fountain  in  the  Vale  of  Shechem 13 

Mount  Gerizim  and  Mount  Ebal 17 

A   Group  of   Samaritans 24 

Mount    Gerizim 34 

Coins   of   Neapolis 89 

An  Old  Church  in  Shechem 98 

Joseph's  Tomb 107 

Jacob  esh-Shelaby  and  General  Wilson 141 

Jacob's  Well 154 

The  Sacred  Pentateuch  Codex 286 

Page  of   Watson    Codex   II 288 

Page  of  the  Barberini  Triglot 291 

plates 

1.  The  Shechem   Decalogue 

2.  The  Shechem  Inscription  of  the  Ten  Words  of  Creation     . 

3.  The  Leeds  Fragment  of  a  Decalogue  Inscription     .... 

4.  The  First  Emmaus  Inscription 

5.  The    Second    Emmaus    Inscription 

6.  The  Third  Emmaus  Inscription 

7.  Damascus    House-Inscription        (Sobernheim,    Abb.    8) 

8.  Bronze    Tablet    (do.    15,    16) following  272 

9.  Damascus  House-Inscription        (do  Abb.   11.) 

10.  "  "  "  (Musil,  II.) 

11.  "  "  "  (  do.    VI.) 

12.  "  "  "  (  do.  VIII.)       .     .     following  280 

13.  Comparative  Table  of  the  Samaritan  Alphabet 278 

maps. 

Shechem-Nablus  and  Vicinity 1 

The  Ruins  on  Mount  Gerizim at  end  of  volume 

xiii 


bibliographical:  abbreviations. 

Abu'l  Fath:  Vilmar,  Abulfathi  annates  Samaritani.  _ 

AJ:  Josephus,  Antiquities  of  the  Jews;  BJ:  do.  Jewish  War. 

Baedeker:  K.  Baedeker,  Paldstina  und  Syrien;  ed.  5,  1900. 

BR:  E.  Robinson,  Biblical  Researches,  Boston,   1841,  LBR:  do.  Later 

Biblical  Researches,  Boston,  1856. 
BS:  M.  Heidenheim,  Bibliotheca  Samaritana. 
Chron.  Adler:  E.  N.  Adler,  line  nouvelle  chronique  samaritaine   (cited 

according  to  the  separate  imprint  of  1893). 
Chron.  Neub.:    A.   Neubauer,  Chronique  samaritaine,  in  Journal  asi- 

atique,  1869. 
CS:  W.  Gesenius,  Carmina  Samaritana. 
DB:  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 
DVJ:    (Heidenheim's)    Deutsche   Vierteljahrsschrift  fur  enghsch-theo- 

logische  Forschung  und  Kritik,  1861-1871. 
EB:  Encyclopedia  Biblica. 

GJV:  E.  Schurer,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  etc.;  ed.  3. 
HG:  G.  A.  Smith.  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land;  ed.  7,.i90i. 
Hist.  Sam.:  T.  Juynboll,  Commentarii  in  historiam  gentis  Samaritana;. 
JAOS:  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society. 
JBL:  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature. 
JE:  Jewish  Encyclopedia. 
JQR:  Jewish  Quarterly  Review. 

JZW:  Jiidische  Zcitschrift  fiir  Wissenschaft  und  Lcben. 
KAT:   E.   Schrader,  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament;  ed.   3, 

1902. 
Lib.  Jos.:  T.  Juynboll,  Chronicon  Samaritanum  — Liber  Josiuz. 
Marka:  the  text  of  Marka  given  by  Heidenheim,  BS,  iii    (cited  accord- 
ing to  the  MS  pagination  given  in  margin). 
MGWJ:    (Frankel's)    Monatsschrift  fiir  Geschichte  und  Wissenschaft 

des  Judenthums.  _ '  . 

N.  et  E:  de  Sacy,  Correspondance  des  Samaritams  de  Naplouse,  in  No- 
tices et  Extraits  des  Manuscrits  de  la  Bibliothcque  du  Roi,  vol. 
xii,  1831. 
PEFQS:  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  Quarterly  Statement. 
PSBA:  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of    Biblical  Archeology;  TSBA: 

T venisections  etc. 
RE:  Herzog  and  Plitt,  Rcal-Encyklopadie  fur  protestantische  Theolo- 

gie;  ed.  2   (unless  otherwise  indicated). 
REJ:  Revue  des  etudes  juives. 

REJud:  Hamburger,  Real-Encyclopadie  des  Judenthums. 
Repertorium:    (Eichhorn's)    Repertorium    fiir  biblische   und   morgen- 

landische  Litteratur.  . 

Sam.  Targ.:  J.  W.  Nutt,  Fragments  of  a  Samaritan  Tar  gum  — With 

an  Introduction. 
Sam.  Theol.:  W.  Gesenius,  De  Samaritanorum  theologia  —  commen- 

tatio. 
SBOT:  P.  Haupt,  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
SWPM:  Conder  and  Kitchener,  Survey  of  Western  Palestine  Memoirs, 

vol.  ii :  Samaria. 
ZATW:  Zcitschrift  fiir  die  alttestamcnthchc  Wissenschaft. 
ZDPV:  Zcitschrift  des  dcutschen  Paldstina-Vereins. 


"  And  he  was  a  Samaritan."    (St.  Luke,  17,  16.) 


THE  SAMARITANS 


Map  of  Shechem-Nablus  and  Vicinity. 
(From   K.   Baedeker,   Palastina  und  Syrien.     By  permission.) 


THE   SAMARITANS. 

CHAPTER  I. 
THE  RE-DISCOVERY  OF  THE  SAMARITANS. 

The  existence  of  a  peculiar  sect  native  to  Samaria,  the 
central  region  of  Palestine,  is  first  noticed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 2  Ki.  17,  where  they  are  called  the  Samaritans.1 
This  record  narrates  that  the  land  of  the  northern  King- 
dom of  Israel,  having  been  denuded  of  its  population  by  the 
Assyrian  conqueror  after  the  fall  of  the  capital,  the  city  of 
Samaria,  in  722  B.C.,  was  repopulated  by  heathen  colonies 
transferred  thither  from  distant  parts  of  the  empire.  The 
deities  of  the  respective  colonies  are  then  named,  and  the 
narrative  proceeds  to  relate  how  upon  the  outbreak  of  a 
plague  of  lions  the  newcomers  bethought  themselves,  in  true 
primitive  fashion,  of  the  claims  of  the  neglected  god  of  the 
land;  in  consequence  of  their  distress  they  sought,  with  the 
patronage  of  the  Assyrian  King,  to  learn  the  way  of  the 
God  of  Israel,  and  added  his  worship  to  their  respective 
cults,  the  result  being  an  eclectic  form  of  religion,  abhorrent 
indeed  to  Yahwe  and  to  all  who  found  in  him  the  One  True 
God. 

After  a  lapse  of  two  centuries  the  people  of  Samaria  ap- 
pear again  as  the  opponents  of  the  restored  Jewish  state,  and 
especially  as  objecting  to  the  re-building  of  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem.2  The  history  of  the  Jews  as  continued  by  the 
Books  of  Maccabees  and  the  works  of  Josephus,  abounds  in 
references  to  the  Samaritan  sect,  whose  members  always 

1  For  the  names  of  the  Samaritans^  see  Additional  Note  B. 

2  Ezra-Nehemia,  passim. 

I 


2  THE  SAMARITANS 

appear  as  the  arch-enemies  of  Israel.  The  historians  of  the 
Pagan  empire  of  Rome  give  some  data  bearing  upon  the 
sect,  while  the  Byzantine  chronicles  and  edicts  of  the  IVth, 
Vth,  and  Vlth  Centuries  have  much  to  report  upon  the  ob- 
noxious and  rebellious  nature  of  the  people. 

To  the  man  of  average  information  the  sect  is  mostly,  if 
not  solely,  known,  through  the  contact  which  Jesus  several 
times  had  with  the  Samaritans  and  from  his  parable  of  the 
Good  Samaritan.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  Christ's  gentle- 
ness that  these  evangelical  accounts  alone,  to  popular  knowl- 
edge, redeem  the  ill-fame  of  that  sect.  He  himself  even 
was  given  the  opprobrious  epithet  of  "  Samaritan."  A 
chapter  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  then,  particularly  in 
their  comments  upon  Biblical  passages,  the  Church  Fathers, 
throw  some  light  upon  the  relations  of  the  Samaritans  with 
Judaism  and  Christianity. 

Many  references  to  the  sect  are  found  in  the  Talmuds. 
Midrashim,  and  other  Jewish  literature,  and  there  is  a  small 
tractate  bound  up  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  which  treats  of 
the  Samaritans.  But  the  Talmud  still  remains  a  wilderness 
to  general  Christian  knowledge,  and  the  Jews  have  felt, 
until  very  recent  times,  but  little  interest  in  digesting  the 
information  at  their  hand  concerning  "  the  foolish  people 
who  dwell  at  Shechem  "  {Ecclus.  50,  25),  —  which  city  has 
been  from  the  beginning  the  headquarters  of  the  sect. 

Thus  it  came  about  that  when  the  dark  veil  of  Islam  sep- 
arated the  East  from  the  West,  the  Samaritan  sect,  despised 
and  abominated  by  Jew  and  Christian  alike,  fell  into  deep 
oblivion  so  far  as  the  western  world  was  concerned.  Those 
intelligent  observers,  the  Arabic  geographers,  historians  and 
philosophers,  recorded  valuable  notices  of  the  Samaritans  ;3 
the  Jewish  traveller,  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  brought  home 
some  exact  information  concerning  them.4     But  mediaeval 

3  See  below,  p.  i34ff. 

4  See  below,  p.   136. 


RE-DISCOVERY  3 

Europe  was  too  sunk  in  barbarism  to  have  its  curiosity 
awakened;  even  the  Crusaders  utterly  ignored  the  Samar- 
itans, although  the  sacred  city  of  the  sect,  which  since  the 
Roman  period  bore  the  name  of  Neapolis,  was  one  of  the 
gay  centres  of  those  marauders.  Among  the  many  travel- 
lers who  in  the  spirit  of  adventure  visited  the  Orient,  after 
Islam  had  recovered  its  own  again,  only  two  before  the 
XVIIth  Century  seem  to  have  noticed  the  Samaritans, 
Wilhelm  von  Boldensele,  of  Lower  Saxony,  in  13335  and 
the  author  of  the  more  or  less  romantic  work  ascribed  to 
John  Mandeville,  composed  between  1357  and  1371,  and 
widely  read  in  many  editions  and  languages.6  What  the 
entertaining  Sir  John  has  to  say  about  the  Samaritans  — 
how  that  they  are  a  distinct  sect  and  wear  a  red  turban  — 
is  very  accurate,  but  probably  it  was  all  taken  as  one  of  his 
"  traveller's  tales."  The  Samaritans  became  to  Christen- 
dom as  real,  or  as  unreal,  as  the  Lost  Ten  Tribes  who  dwell 
beyond  the  fabled  river  Sambation. 

The  dense  darkness  was  at  last  penetrated  by  the  genius 
and  the  will  of  "  the  greatest  scholar  of  modern  times," 
Joseph  Scaliger.  In  1583  was  published  his  immortal  work 
De  emendatione  temporum,  in  which  he  asserted  the  rights 
of  the  Orient  to  its  place  in  universal  history,  and  the  value 
of  all  oriental  chronicles  for  the  scientific  historian.  It  was 
evidently  this  magnum  opus  which  determined  the  author  to 
explore  the  Samaritans,  for  in  conjunction  with  it  he  set 
agencies  in  motion  which  in  the  following  year,  1584, 
brought  him  from  the  Samaritan  colony  in  Cairo  two  cal- 

5  See  his  Hodccporicon  ad  Terrain  Sane  tarn,  in  Canisius,  Thesaurus 
monument  or  um,  ed.  Basnage,  iv,  353.     See  ZDMG  xvi,  710. 

6  On  authorship  and  bibliography,  see  the  articles  on  "  Mandeville  " 
in  Encyclopedia  Britannic  a  and  Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  The 
passage  is  found  in  Halliwell's  edition,  The  Voyage  and  Travaille  of 
Sir  John  Maundevillc,  London,  1839,  p.  108.  Kootwyk  (Cotovicus), 
who  travelled  in  Palestine  in  1598,  refers  to  the  Samaritans  as  a  sect 
of  the  Jews ;  see  his  Itinerarium  Hierosolymitanum  et  Syriacum,  Ant- 
werp, 1 619,  p.  342. 


4  THE  SAMARITANS 

endars,   and  a  copy  of  the   Samaritan  Book   of  Joshua.1 
The  great  scholar's  appetite  was  now  whetted  for  the  pos- 
session of  a  copy  of  the  edition  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  he 
heard  the  sect  possessed.     His  ambition  was  not  rewarded, 
because  the  Samaritans  refused  the  boon  of  their  holy  Law 
to  an  alien.     But  his  search  had  its  fruit  in  two  epistles  of 
the  date  1590,  one  from  a  Samaritan  of  Gaza,  the  other 
from  Egypt,  and  these  documents  were  the  beginning  of  an 
extensive  correspondence  with  European  scholars,  which  for 
nearly  250  years  was  almost  the  sole  source  of  information 
concerning  the  contemporary  condition  of  the  Samaritans.8 
The  next  European  to  gain  undying  merit  for  himself  in 
investigating  the  Samaritans  was  the  great  traveller  Pietro 
della  Valle,  who  is  also  immortal  and  of  special  interest 
to  present-day  scholarship  as  the  first  to  acquaint  the  west- 
ern world  with  the  Persian  cuneiform  inscriptions,  which 
have  at  last  given  the  key  to  the  decipherment  of  the  lit- 
erature of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.9     Upon  the  commission 
of  Achille  Harlay  de  Sancy,  the  French  ambassador  at  Con- 
stantinople, that  he  procure  a  copy  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch, della  Valle  made  the  Samaritans  a  special  quest  of 
his  travels,  and  in  1616  visited  their  communities  at  Cairo, 
Gaza,  Shechem   (the  modern  Nablus),  and  Damascus,  in 
which  latter  city  he  at  last  succeeded  in  his  search.     It  may 
be  worth  while  to  repeat  part  of  his  quaint  description  of 
the  visit  made  one  summer  day  to  the  Samaritan  community 
housed  in  the  suburbs  of  Damascus.     "  One  morning,"  he 

7  For  Scaliger's  work,  which  in  the  later  editions  published  the  cal- 
endar material  — the  first  appearance  of  a  Samaritan  document  in 
print  _  see  Chap.  XIV,  note  80,  and  Bibliography. 

8  These  letters,  which  were  called  out  by  the  efforts  of  Scaliger's 
friend  de  Peiresc,  never  reached  him,  as  he  died  before  they  arrived  at 
their  destination.  A  Latin  translation  was  published  by  Morin  in 
Simon,  Antiquitates  ecclcsice  orientalis,  1682,  p.  119.  The  text,  with 
translation  and  notes,  was  finally  published  by  de  Sacy  in  Eichhorn's 
Repertorium,  xiii  (1783),  257.  For  the  history  of  Scaliger's  efforts,  see 
Juynboll,  Lib.  Jos.   1. 

9  See  Rogers,  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  1,   16 


RE-DISCOVERY  5 

writes,  "  I  was  consoled  for  all  the  discomforts  brought  me 
by  that  illness  by  being  taken  by  Father  Michael  and  by  a 
Hebrew,  my  friend  and  interpreter,  to  see  outside  the  city 
in  the  gardens  certain  small  houses  which  were  there,  be- 
longing to  the  Hebrew  Samaritans,  beside  the  pleasure 
which  I  had  in  seeing  those  gardens,  and  those  houses, 
which  within  were  most  gay,  in  spite  of  making  a  very  poor 
appearance 'without,  all  filled  with  pictures  painted  in  minia- 
ture, with  their  Samaritan  letters  engraved  in  gold,  and  so 
also  their  synagogues."  He  then  proceeds  to  describe  his 
inspection  of  the  Samaritan  books,  he  being  the  first  Chris- 
tian scholar,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  become  acquainted  with 
them  since  the  Roman  rule,  even  as  he  was  the  first  modern 
Christian  to  come  into  intimate  intercourse  with  the  sect.10 

Delia  Valle  was  able  to  purchase  two  copies  of  the  Samar- 
itan Hebrew  Pentateuch,  a  copy  of  the  Targum  or  Aramaic 
translation  of  the  same,  and  some  other  books.  The  dis- 
covery of  these  literary  treasures  set  all  learned  Europe 
agog,  for  they  became  an  additional  apple  of  discord  in  the 
wordy  and  voluminous  strife  between  Catholic  and  Prot- 
estant theologians  as  to  the  text  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Church's  authority  in  defining  her  Canon  and  its  text.11 
Once  again  the  Samaritans  played  their  historic  part  as 
disturbers  of  the  peace,  but  now  in  the  distant  academies 
of  Europe. 

At  the  end  of  the  same  century  three  travellers  visited  the 
Samaritans,  the  first  of  whom,  Huntington,  gave  renewed 
stimulus  to  the  interest  awakened  in  the  sect.  The  two 
others  wrote  brief  descriptions  of  the  Samaritans  at  Nablus ; 
one  of  them  was  Henry  Maundrell,  the  predecessor  of  Hunt- 

10  For  the  editions  of  della  Valle's  Viaggi,  see  Bibliography.  The 
above  passage  appears  in  the  Xlllth  Letter,  "  from  Aleppo."  I  owe 
my  translation  to  the  kind  assistance  of  E.  H.  M.  For  the  recent  dis- 
coveries of  house  inscriptions  like  those  described  by  della  Valle,  see 
below,  p.  277. 

11  For  these  MSS  and  the  resulting  discussion,  see  Chapter  XIV, 
§§  6,  7. 


6  THE  SAMARITANS 

ington  in  the  chaplaincy  at  Aleppo,  in  1697,  the  other  the 
Frenchman,  A.  Morison,  in  1698.  These  seem  to  have  been 
almost  the  last  direct  observations  upon  the  Samaritans 
until  the  visits  of  European  travellers  in  the  XlXth  Cen- 
tury.12 

But  the  laurels  in  the  quest  after  the  strange  sect  fell  to 
Robert  Huntington,  later  Bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Raphoe 
of  the  Church  of  Ireland  (d.  1701).  When  chaplain  at  the 
English  "  factory  "  in  Aleppo,  he  undertook  a  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem in  1 67 1,  and  on  the  way  visited  Nablus.13  The 
Samaritans  were  astonished  at  his  interest  in  them  and  at 
his  acquaintance  with  their  literature  and  script,  and  they 
assumed  that  the  Israelites  in  England,  of  whom  the  clergy- 
man spoke,  were  their  brothers.  By  nursing  their  self- 
deception  he  obtained  a  copy  of  their  Pentateuch,  and  soon 
afterwards,  at  Jerusalem,  received  from  them  an  epistle  ad- 
dressed to  their  "  Brethren  in  England."  Before  an  answer 
arrived,  the  Samaritans  addressed  to  him  another  letter 
written  at  Gaza  in  1674.  The  first  epistle  came  into  the 
hands  of  Thomas  Marshall  of  Oxford  (rector  of  Lincoln 
College,  1672-1685),  who  in  1675  addressed  a  Hebrew 
epistle  to  the  Samaritans,  which  informed  them  that  the 
writers  were  of  the  race  of  Japheth ;  its  substance  was  a 
pious  attempt  to  proselytize  the  sect  for  the  Christian 
Messiah.  Huntington  forwarded  this  letter,  accompanied 
by  one  from  himself  inquiring  concerning  the  alleged  dove- 
cult  of  the  Samaritans. 

The  latter  immediately  replied,  in  1675,  with  a  curt  re- 
sponse to  Huntington,  expressing  their  surprise  at  his  in- 
quiries and  their  amazement  at  the  lack  of  information  con- 
cerning the  Brethren  in  England.     The  earlier  correspon- 

12  Maundrell,  Journey  from  Aleppo  to  Jerusalem  at  Easter  1697, 
Oxford,  1703,  etc. ;  the  reference  is  under  date  of  March  24.  A.  Mor- 
ison, Relation  historique  d'un  voyage  au  Mont  Sinai  et  a  Jerusalem, 
Toulouse,  1704,  p.  234. 

13  See  T.  Smith,  R.  Huntingtoni  Epistolar,  1704. 


RE-DISCOVERY  J 

dence  had  been  couched  in  Hebrew,  the  mother-tongue  of 
the  sect,  and  written  in  the  peculiar  Samaritan  script;  this 
letter  was  in  Arabic,  the  vernacular  in  Palestine.  The  reply 
was  accompanied  by  two  epistles,  addressed  to  the  Brethren 
in  England,  the  one  in  Arabic,  the  other  in  Hebrew.  An- 
other Arabic  epistle  for  the  English  Brethren  was  addressed 
to  Huntington  in  1688.14  Huntington's  deceit  was  an  un- 
fortunate one,  for  it  established  in  the  Samaritan  mind  a 
well-founded  suspicion  against  the  Europeans. 

In  the  same  decade  with  the  epistles  last  mentioned  falls 
the  correspondence  between  Job  Ludolf,  the  Amsterdam 
scholar,  and  the  Samaritans.  He  availed  himself  of  the 
services  of  an  itinerant  Jew,  who  was  acquainted  with  the 
Samaritans,  to  forward  them  a  Hebrew  letter.  In  the  fol- 
lowing year,  1685,  the  Samaritans  replied  with  two  epistles, 
containing  largely  duplicate  matter.  Ludolf  again  replied, 
and  in  1691  received  a  third  letter,  of  date  1689. 15     A  lull 

14  For  the  correspondence  since  Huntington's  time,  the  fullest  author- 
ity is  de  Sacy,  who  has  also  edited  most  of  the  Samaritan  epistles. 
See  his  invaluable  Correspondence  des  Samaritains  de  Naplouse,  in 
Notices  et  Extraits  des  Manuscrits  de  la  Bibliotheque  du  Roi,  xii 
(1831),  p.  1.  The  preface  gives  an  account  of  the  Samaritans  and  the 
correspondence;  the  body  of  the  article,  almost  all  the  epistles,  along 
with  translations,  except  those  to  Scaliger  and  Ludolf.  All  the  Hunt- 
ington correspondence,  with  the  exception  of  Huntington's  letter  con- 
cerning the  dove-cult,  is  found  in  Nos.  xvii-xxiii.  Of  the  Epistle  of 
1672  the  English  scholar,  Edward  Bernard,  gave  a  translation  in  Lu- 
dolf, Epistolce  Samaritance  Sichemitarum  ad  J.  Ludolf.,  Zeiz,  1688,  p. 
26;  in  N.  et  E.  it  is  No.  xvii.  The  Epistle  of  1674  appeared  in  German 
translation  by  Schnurrer  in  Eichhorn's  Repertorium,  ix,  8,  and  with 
text  and  translation  in  N.  et  E.  xviii ;  the  Epistle  from  Marshall,  in 
like  forms,  in  Repert,  ix,  11,  and  N.  et  E.,  No.  xix;  the  Arabic  Epistle 
of  1675  in  Repert.  ix,  16,  and  N.  et  E.  xx;  the  Arabic  Epistle  to  the 
Samaritans  in  England  of  the  same  date,  and  the  fragment  which  has 
alone  been  preserved  of  the  fellow  Hebrew  Epistle,  in  Repert.  ix,  22, 
55,  and  N.  et  E.  xxi,  xxii;  that  of  1688,  in  Repert.  ix,  36,  and  N.  et  E. 
xxiii. 

15  The  first  two  of  these  Epistles  appeared  in  Ludolf,  Epistolce  Sama- 
ritance Sichemitarum  ad  J.  Ludolf,  1688  (bound  up  with  Cellarius,  Col- 
lectanea histories  Samaritance,  of  same  date).  The  third  Epistle  was 
not  published  in  full  until  the  appearance  of  Bruns,  Epistola  Sam. 
Sichemit.  tertia  ad  J.  Ludolf.  1781,  which  work  was  republished  in 
Repert.  xiii,  277.  Cellarius  had  published  some  extracts  from  it  in  his 
Historia  gentis  et  religionis  Samaritance,  i6gg. 


8  THE  SAMARITANS 

then  fell  upon  this  learned  intercourse,  until  it  was  taken 
up  by  the  French  savants  of  the  XlXth  Century.16  But  the 
new  information  had  the  effect  of  stimulating  some  of  the 
encyclopaedic  scholars  of  the  XVIIth  Century,  the  great 
lexicographer  Castellus,  that  prince  of  archaeologists  Re- 
land,  Cellarius,  and  others,  to  the  accumulation  of  all  the 
material  concerning  the  strange  sect;  but  we  must  pass 
over  the  labors  of  many  indefatigable  scholars  and  travel- 
lers of  this  earlier  period  of  research.  One  note  recorded 
by  Kennicott17  is  worthy  of  citation  because  of  its  reference 
to  an  attempt  to  acquire  the  sacred  Nablus  codex.  Kenni- 
cott relates  that  word  had  been  received  from  Mr.  John  Us- 
gate  in  1734;  that  "  he  had  been  at  Naplose,  the  preceding 
February;  that  several  families  of  the  Samaritans  then  re- 
sided there;  that  they  had  still  their  old  MS.  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, some  passages  of  which  were  so  effaced  as  to  be 
scarce  legible;  and  that  he  had  made  proposals  and  hoped 
soon  to  agree  with  them  for  the  purchase  of  it;  of  which 
he  would  send  Mr.  Swinton  notice.  But  no  such  notice  has 
been  since  received ;  the  purchase  being  probably  prevented 
by  the  unfortunate  death  of  Mr.  Usgate,  who  was  after- 
wards cut  to  pieces  by  a  party  of  Persians." 

The  next  stage  in  these  epistolary  relations,  and  the  one 
yielding  the  most  scientific  results,  was  under  the  auspices 
of  the  First  Empire;  the  initiative  was  taken  by  the  distin- 
guished Henri  Gregoire,  Bishop  of  Blois,  revolutionary,  sen- 
ator of  the  Empire,  and  author  of  the  Histoire  des  sectcs 
religieuses,  with  the  aid  of  de  Sacy,  the  illustrious  Arabist, 

10  However,  Samaritan  Epistles  seem  to  have  found  their  way  to 
Europe  in  the  interim.  Heidenheim  has  published  in  his  DVJ  1,  78,  the 
Schreiben  Meshalmah  ben  Ab  Sechuah's  an  die  Samaritaner,  appar- 
ently addressed  to  coreligionists  in  Europe.  It  is  subsequent  to  the 
failure  of  the  highpriesthood  in  1623.  In  1790  the  Samaritans  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  the  Brethren  in  France,  which,  found  again  in  Hol- 
land, was  published  by  Hamaker,  in  Aanmerkingen  over  de  Saman- 
ianen,  1834.     This  Epistle  I  have  not  seen. 

17  State  of  the  Printed  Hebrew  Text,  Diss.  II,  541. 


RE-DISCOVERY  g 

who  was  the  writer  of  most  of  the  French  documents,  and 
became  the  editor  of  all  the  correspondence.  After  some 
futile  applications  to  French  consuls  in  Syria,  Consul-gen- 
eral Corancez  at  Aleppo  addressed  a  letter  containing  cate- 
gorical questions  to  the  Samaritans,  and  this  drew  from 
them,  in  1808,  a  full  and  direct  reply.  But  the  answer  only 
provoked  further  questions,  and  these  were  drawn  up  by 
Gregoire  and  de  Sacy  in  a  memoir  containing  sixteen  ques- 
tions. Direct  answers  thereto  were  received  in  a  long  He- 
brew letter,  accompanied  by  a  short  one  in  Arabic,  of  date 
181  o.  Ten  years  later,  in  1820,  there  reached  de  Sacy  an 
Arabic  letter,  accompanied  with  a  table  of  contemporary 
astronomical  observations,  and  also  a  Hebrew  epistle  ad- 
dressed to  the  Brethren  in  Europe.  Finally  in  1826  there 
arrived  a  Hebrew  epistle  addressed  to  the  Samaritans  in 
Paris.18 

These  Samaritan  epistles,  dating  from  Scaliger  to  de 
Sacy,  are  most  valuable  in  the  information  they  give  upon 
the  theology  and  the  contemporary  condition  of  the  Samar- 
itans. The  latter  answered  the  questions  addressed  to  them 
with  great  intelligence  and  frankness,  while  the  sincerity 
of  the  information  is  the  more  evident  because  many  of 
the  letters  were  addressed  to  the  assumed  Brethren  in 
Europe.  Further,  in  the  scholarly  study  of  the  sect  it  was 
these  epistles  which  constituted,  alongside  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  codices,  almost  the  sole  knowledge  scholars  pos- 

18  For  all  this  correspondence  of  the  French  savants,  see  N.  et  E.; 
the  letters  are  given  under  Nos.  iv-xvi ;  xxiv-xxv.  There  is  also  to 
be  noted  an  epistle  obtained  by  Kautzsch,  of  date  1884,  from  the  Sa- 
maritan highpriest,  published  in  ZDPV  viii,  149.  It  contains  answers 
to  questions  concerning  the  numbers  of  the  community,  their  inner 
legal  relations,  and  the  Taeb  or  Messiah,  giving  an  interesting  definition 
of  the  latter  term ;  see  below,  p.  246.  A  Samaritan  letter  addressed  to 
the  author  appears  in  Rosenberg,  Lehrbuch  d.  sam.  Sprache,  1901. 
There  exists  a  petition  addressed  to  the  government  of  Louis  Philippe, 
in  1842;  see  below,  p.  141.  A  letter  of  the  Samaritans  to  the  English 
government  of  date  1875  is  in  the  British  Museum,  catalogued  as  Or. 
1381.  Almkvist  has  published  a  congratulatory  Epistle  to  King  Oscar 
(see  Bibliography). 


10  THE  SAMARITANS 

sessed  on  the  subject,  until  the  opening  up  of  more  exten- 
sive and  immediate  information  in  later  years  of  the  XlXth 
Century. 

But  there  was  a  more  direct  way  of  learning  about  the 
modern  Samaritans  than  by  their  literature  and  epistles, 
namely  through  the  close  study  of  the  sect  in  its  home  by 
trained  orientalists.  The  few  earlier  travellers  had  noted 
only  things  which  lay  upon  the  surface.  Edward  Robin- 
son, who  visited  Shechem  in  1838  and  1852,  left  scholarly 
accounts  of  his  brief  sojourns  there.19  But  Heinrich  Peter- 
mann,  the  distinguished  orientalist,  was  the  first  to  take  the 
pains  to  devote  considerable  time  to  a  visit  to  the  Samari- 
tans. In  1853  he  spent  two  months  among  the  people, 
making  there,  despite  many  difficulties,  a  systematic  study 
of  all  that  he  could  learn.20  He  had  already  in  the  spring 
attended  the  Samaritan  Passover,  his  party,  which  included 
the  English  consul  Finn,  and  the  German  scholar  and  con- 
sul Rosen,  being  the  first  modern  Europeans  to  witness  that 
ancient  rite,  which  in  the  Jewish  Church  had  ceased  for 
1800  years.21  In  the  same  year  with  Petermann  the  French 
abbe  Barges  visited  the  Samaritans,22  and  since  that  time 
the  ancient  sect  has  been  an  objective  both  of  curious  tour- 
ists and  of  well-trained  scholars.  Among  the  latter  may 
be  named  Rosen,  John  Mills,  Hammond,  Dean  Stanley, 
Firkovitch,  Warren,  Conder,  and  the  Americans  Trumbull 
and  Huxley.23  We  may  record  here  the  visit  of  a  fugitive 
Samaritan  to  the  west;  in  1855  Jacob  esh-Shelaby  went  to 
London,  having  with  difficulty  escaped  assassination  by  the 
Muslims  at  home,  and  interested  many  philanthropic  Eng- 

19  BR  hi,  96;  LBR,  128. 

20  Petermann,  Reisen  im  Orient,  i,  chap.  vii. 

21  Ibid.,  233. 

22  See  his  Samaritains  de  Naplouse,  1855. 

23  See  the  Bibliography.  I  have  not  attempted  there  to  record  the 
visits  of  all  travellers  to  Nablus,  but  only,  as  a  rule,  the  accounts  of 
those  who  have  attended  the  Samaritan  Passover. 


RE-DISCOVERY  II 

lishmen  —  among  them  Lord  Shaftesbury  —  in  his  people's 
cause,  for  which  he  made  some  extensive  collections.24 

Further,  in  consequence  of  the  renewed  interest  of  the 
western  world  in  the  sect  at  Nablus,  and  through  the  open- 
ing up  of  the  treasures  of  the  Orient  in  the  last  century, 
scholarship  has  become  enriched  with  a  great  quantity  and 
variety  of  Samaritan  manuscripts,  which  have  manifolded 
our  means  of  studying  the  history  and  the  genius  of  the 
sect.  Partly  by  infiltration  from  unknown  sources,  partly 
by  direct  purchase,  this  literary  material  has  been  slowly 
flowing  into  European  libraries,  and  it  proves  the  Samari- 
tans to  have  been  by  no  means  ignorant  of  letters.  Be- 
side many  texts  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  and  its  Targum, 
we  have  extensive  theological  treatises  and  Midrashim,  com- 
mentaries which  show  some  exegetical  skill,  chronicles 
whose  defect  is  their  chronology,  grammatical  and  scientific 
works,  and,  most  important  of  all  for  studying  the  spirit  of 
the  Samaritan  religion,  tomes  of  their  liturgy.  The  chief 
collection  of  this  material  is  found  in  the  British  Museum,25 
which  is  now  rivalled,  in  quantity  at  least,  by  the  Royal  Li- 
brary at  St.  Petersburg,  containing  the  treasures  found  by 
the  great  Karaite  scholar  Abraham  Firkovitch.26  Along- 
side of  these  should  be  named  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Ox- 
ford,27 and  then  the  libraries  in  Cambridge,28  at  Ley- 
den,29  Paris,30  Rome,  Berlin,  and  Gotha.  Pieces  of  the 
literature  are  to  be  found  in  many  other  collections,  private 

24  See  Consul  Rogers,  Notices  of  the  Modern  Samaritans,  etc.,  1855. 
Shelaby's  coreligionists  charged  that  he  kept  the  money  for  himself, 
and  when  he  returned,  he  had  to  retire  to  Jerusalem. 

25  Margoliouth,  Descriptive  List.  1893,  and  Catalogue,  1899.  (For 
these  catalogues,  see  Bibliography.) 

26  Harkavy,  Catalog.  Cf.  the  digest  of  the  collection  given  by  Har- 
kavy  in  Nutt,  Samaritan  Targum,  Appendix  i. 

27  See  the  Catalogues  of  Nicoll  and  Pusey,  1835,  and  Neubauer,  1866. 

28  Wright  and  Schiller-Szinnessy's  Appendix  to  the  Trinity  College 
Catalogue. 

29  De  Jong,  Catalogus  Codicum  Orientalium  bibliothecce  academue 
regies  Lugdun.-Batav.,  1862. 

30  Zotenberg,  Catalogues,  1866;   Steinschneider,  Supplement,  1903. 


12  THE  SAMARITANS 

as  well  as  public.  This  extensive  material  has  by  no  means 
as  yet  been  worked  out,  although  it  has  engaged  the  inter- 
est of  many  Semitists,  some  of  them  the  peers  of  the  schol- 
ars of  the  XVIIth  Century,  such  as  Gesenius,  Juynboll, 
Kuenen,  Noldeke,  Geiger,  Kohn,  Neubauer,  Heidenheim, 
Clermont-Ganneau,  Cowley,  and  many  others,  the  long  list 
of  whom  shows  that  Samaritana  evoke  the  attention  of 
specialists  in  many  different  lines.  It  may  be  said  that  we 
now  possess  enough  material  to  recover  the  history  and  de- 
pict the  character  of  the  Samaritans  so  far  as  literature  can 
give  the  means,  until  the  archaeologist's  spade  shall  turn  up 
in  Palestinian  soil  ancient  monuments  which  can  make  rev- 
elations concerning  the  darkest  age  of  Samaritan  history, 
that  of  its  beginnings. 


fe 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  LAND  OF  SAMARIA  AND  THE  CITY  OF 
SHECHEM. 

i]   5'   ap'   erjv   ayadri   re  /ecu   alyivo/ios   /cat   uSpijXij  • 
ov8e   fikv    'eanev    656s   SoXixV    ttoXiv    elcrcupiKecrOai 
aypoOev,    ov8e    wore   dpia    XaxvhSVTa    Troveveriv. 
e£  avrijs  Se  fidX'   ayx1-   ^'   ovpea   (palver'   ipvfivcL 
7T011JS    re    ir\ri6ovra    /cat    CXtjs  •    rwv    Se    fie<yr\yv 
drpaTrirbs    TirfirjT'y    dpaii]   y\v<fiist   ei>&'    erepwOi 
yrj    Step?/    ^iki/jlwv    KariupaLveTai,    iepbv    acrrv 
vepdev   vtto   pli^ri    5e5/iij/xeVoj'  •    dfMpl   8e   ret  xos 
Atcrcroj',  vwwpeiap  5'    virodedpofxev   alirvBev   ep/cos. 

(Description  of  the  Vale  of  Shechem  by  the  Hellenistic  poet  Theo- 
dotus,  in  Eusebius,  Pr<zp.  Evang.  ix,  22,  with  Ludwich's  emendations.) 

The  central  district  of  Palestine  is  Samaria,  one  of  the 
three  divisions  of  the  Holy  Land  well  known  to  all  students 
of  the  New  Testament.  But  the  name  Samaria  as  applied 
to  the  district  is  comparatively  recent;  it  is  the  Hellenized 
form  of  Shomeron,  the  capital  which  Omri  founded  in  the 
IXth  Century  B.C.,1  and  the  name  of  the  city  was  extended 
to  the  district  only  towards  the  end  of  the  following  cen- 
tury, when  the  Assyrian  advance  cut  off  from  Northern  Is- 
rael Galilee  and  Across-Jordan,  and  reduced  the  once  proud 
kingdom  of  Israel  to  a  dependent  province  named  after  its 
one  important  city.2  The  older  name  of  the  land  is  Mount 
Ephraim,  or  more  correctly  the  Highland  of  Ephraim.3  It 
is  the  northern  section  of  the  rugged  upland  region,  whose 

1  1  Ki.  16,  24.     See  Additional  Note  A. 

2  Amos  uses  the  word  only  of  the  city,  but  Hosea,  writing  after  the 
land  had  become  an  Assyrian  dependency  (739  B.  C),  always  —  six 
times  —  of  the  land. 

3  Highland  (har)  of  Ephraim,  Jos.  17,  15;  also  once  the  Highland  of 
the  Amorite,  Dt.  1,  7,  and  later  the  Highland  of  Israel,  Jos.  11,  16. 

13 


14  THE  SAMARITANS 

southern  part  bore  the  corresponding  name  of  the  Highland 
of  Juda,4  the  two  sections  being  connected  by  a  narrow  neck 
of  land,  from  which  deep  wadies  descend  eastward  and 
westward,  forbidding  communication  across  the  border  ex- 
cept by  that  rocky  ridge.5  And  alike  and  unlike,  connected 
and  separated,  have  been  the  two  lands  since  the  beginning, 
as  well  in  politics  and  religion  as  by  nature.  The  reader  of 
the  Old  Testament  recalls  that  ancient  monument  of  Hebrew 
literature,  the  Song  of  Debora,  in  whose  count  of  the  tribes 
Juda  is  missing,  while  he  knows  how  the  ancient  separate- 
ness  of  North  and  South  was  perpetuated  by  the  fateful 
schism  under  King  Rehoboam,  which  caused  the  Judaite 
historians  to  look  upon  the  North  as  schismatic  and  ren- 
egade. In  the  history  of  Judaism,  Southern  Israel's  pre- 
cipitate of  the  people  of  Moses  and  David,  Samaria  appears 
almost  as  a  blank  upon  the  map,  and  the  student  of  the  New 
Testament  likewise  knows  how,  while  the  Gospel  history  is 
enacted  on  Judsean  and  Galilaean  soil,  and  even  in  half- 
heathen  Persea,  it  refers  to  Samaria  only  in  episodes. 
Jesus  himself,  like  any  Jewish  rabbi,  was  an  unwelcome 
guest  in  Samaria ;  it  was  an  epoch  in  his  Church's  life  when 
it  established  itself  in  that  hostile  region.  The  absence  of 
information  concerning  Samaria  and  its  people  in  the  his- 
torical sources  that  are  generally  accessible  to  both  Jew  and 
Christian,  naturally  prompts  the  question :  Who  were  the 
Samaritans  ? 

But  if  left  stranded  by  subsequent  historical  develop- 
ments, and  ignored  by  orthodoxy,  the  people  of  Samaria 
may  claim  the  privileges  of  both  nature  and  early  history. 
In  marked  contrast  with  rocky  and  barren  Juda,  Samaria 
is  a  verdant  hill-country,  in  which  the  traveller  marks  a 
constant  succession  of  smiling  valleys.6     Even  the  eastern 

4  Highland  of  Juda,  Jos.   n,  21,  etc.,  cf.  Lu.   1,  39. 

5  See  G.  A.  Smith's  brilliant  chapters  upon  the  comparison  of  Juda 
and  Samaria,  HG  xii,  xvi,  xvii. 

6  Buhl,  Geographic  des  alien  Palaestina,  21  ;  HG  324. 


SAMARIA  AND  SHECHEM  15 

slopes,  which  in  their  southerly  prolongation  end  in  the 
waste  and  precipitous  Wilderness  of  Juda,  are  gradual  in 
their  fall  and  contain  many  a  fertile  spot.7  Unlike  Juda 
too,  Samaria  is  rendered  accessible  by  the  valleys  east  and 
north  and  west,  which  keep  the  land  in  easy  communication 
with  the  world  beyond.  This  comparative  openness  of  the 
district  may  have  contributed  to  the  depravement  of  Israel's 
religion  and  morals,  through  the  ready  contact  with  the 
Mediterranean  highway,  heathenish  Galilee,  Tyre  and  its 
seductive  Baal-worship,  Damascus  and  its  luxuries  {Am. 
3,  12).  It  was  Juda's  geographical  isolation  which  con- 
tributed to  its  final  spiritual  development  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  its  sacred  fruit.  But  withal  this  catholicity  of  the 
northern  land  has  given  a  richness  to  its  history  and  liter- 
ature which  we  miss  in  the  South.  Except  for  the  episode 
of  David  and  Solomon,  the  North  occupies  the  stage  of  his- 
tory until  the  city  Samaria's  fall ;  there  was  the  seat  of  the 
early  prophetic  guilds,  with  their  seething  life,  pregnant  of 
weal  and  woe  for  Israel's  religion.  The  contrast  may  be 
most  clearly  marked  in  the  comparison  between  the  one  writ- 
ing prophet  of  the  North,  Hosea,  and  his  southern  contem- 
porary Amos.  Both  insist  equally  on  the  exclusive  claims 
of  Yahwe  and  his  righteousness,  but  it  is  the  former  who 
preaches  the  long-suffering  love  of  God,  with  a  depth  of 
passion  and  a  variety  of  imagination,  which  outbid  the 
colder  South.  And  the  divine  Heart  never  lost  its  sym- 
pathy for  the  North :  "  Go,"  speaks  the  Voice  to  Jeremia, 
"  Go,  and  proclaim  these  words  unto  the  North :  Return, 
Backslider  Israel,  says  Yahwe!"  (Jer.  3,  12). 

And  along  with  the  charms  of  nature  and  the  correspond- 
ing endowment  of  a  richer,  more  passionate  character  in  the 
people  of  the  land,  is  associated  the  privilege  of  history. 
Straight  into  the  inviting  uplands  of  Ephraim  went  the 
tribes  of  Israel,  or  such  as  were  associated  under  the  leader- 

7  Robinson,  LBR,  296;  Buhl,  op.  cit.  22. 


16  THE  SAMARITANS 

ship  of  Joseph;  their  objective  was  Shechem,  the  natural 
capital  of  the  district  (Jos.  1-9).  Upon  its  two  holy 
mountains  was  performed,  and  this  according  to  Judsean 
tradition,  the  first  formal  covenant  of  the  people  with  Yahwe 
in  their  new  home  (Jos.  8,  30ft;  Dt.  27).  In  Israel's  mem- 
ories or  legends  of  the  past,  Mount  Ephraim  was  the  land 
frequented  by  Abraham  and  beloved  of  Jacob,  and  many  a 
site  might  be  pointed  out  where  Yahwe  had  appeared  to  his 
favorites.  And  now  again  the  land  was  consecrated  by 
the  graves  of  Joseph  and  Joshua  and  Eleazar  (Jos.  24,  291!), 
even  according  to  an  early  tradition  by  the  tombs  of  all  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs  (Acts,  7,  16).  This  was  the  land  of 
Gideon  and  Samuel  and  Saul,  of  Elija  and  Elisha,  in  a 
word  the  land  of  Israel,  whereas  the  South  possessed  no 
better  title  than  its  tribal  name  Juda,  a  provincial  designa- 
tion, over  against  the  noble  succession  of  the  North.  If 
holy  places  were  counted,  Juda  could  boast  only  of  Hebron 
and  Beersheba,  and  of  the  very  modern  sanctity  of  Jebusite 
Jerusalem,  but  the  North  was  full  of  sanctuaries  where 
Yahwe  had  appeared  and  where  his  heroes  lived  and  died. 
Strange  outcome  that  the  one-time  separatist  tribe  became 
the  Church  of  Israel,  while  the  North  has  at  last  given  home 
to  the  smallest  and  most  insignificant  sect  in  the  world ! 

But  only  in  one  place  is  the  modern  remnant  of  that  an- 
cient sect  to  be  found,  in  historic  Shechem,  once  the  capital 
of  the  tribes  of  Israel,8  the  sanctuary  of  their  Covenant- 
God;9  and  thither  they  have  drawn  back  to  die  in  the  first 
home  of  national  Israel.  In  Shechem  and  its  neighborhood 
is  the  quintessence  of  the  natural  charms  and  historic  tradi- 
tions of  the  land  of  Samaria.  As  the  traveller  from  Jeru- 
salem pushes  his  journey  northwards  along  the  barren  ridge 
which  connects  Juda  with  Samaria,  at  last  his  eye,  wearied 

8  Add  to  previous  references,  1  Ki.  12,  1,  25. 

»  It  contained  the  sanctuary  of  Baal-berith,  or  El-berith,  Ju.  9,  4,  46, 
i.  e.,  the  God  of  Covenant. 


H 


O 


SAMARIA  AND  SHECHEM  I J 

with  stony  ledges  is  refreshed,  hard  by  the  village  of  Kuza, 
with  the  view  of  a  long  and  broadening  valley,  rich  in  sea- 
son with  waving  grain.  Eight  miles  or  more  the  fair  sight 
stretches  before  him  to  the  north,  and  in  direct  alignment 
beyond  appears  the  snowy  peak  of  distant  Hermon.  Into 
this  plain,  al-Machna,  he  descends,  and  on  the  left  there 
begins  to  loom  up  a  pair  of  promontory-like  mountains, 
which,  as  he  approaches  them,  reveal  a  narrow  vale  nestled 
between  their  steep  slopes.  Under  the  eastern  front  of  the 
first  of  the  mountains,  Gerizim,  he  makes  his  way,  and, 
whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  doubtless  pauses  to  rest  at  Jacob's 
Well,  where  once  Jesus  as  he  sat,  held  converse  with  a 
Samaritan  woman  in  words  which  alone  would  immortalize 
her  sect.  From  this  point  he  gains  a  full  view  of  the  vale 
of  Shechem  stretching  to  the  west,  and  turns  in  thither  be- 
tween the  heights  of  Gerizim  and  its  northern  mate  Ebal, 
by  the  road  which  from  immemorial  times  has  connected 
northern  and  southern  Palestine.  For  a  mile  and  a  half  he 
proceeds  into  the  narrowing  valley,  through  fields  of  grain 
and  olive  orchards,  with  the  walls  of  his  destination  lying 
before  him  —  ancient  Shechem,  the  modern  Nablus.10 

Travellers  rival  one  another  in  describing  the  charms  of 
Shechem  and  its  vale.11  Its  climate  is  attractive,  the  moun- 
tains warding  off  the  chill  winds  of  the  north  and  the  hot 
blasts  of  the  south.  The  abundant  waters  of  the  valley, 
springing  from  Gerizim's  side  temper  the  dry  air  of  Pales- 
tine, which  here,  for  one  spot  at  least,  is  enriched  with  the 

10  Nablus,  properly  Nabulus  (as  Abu'l  Fida  points  it),  is  the  Arabic 
corruption  of  Neapolis,  the  name  —  more  fully  Flavia  Neapolis  — 
which  Vespasian  gave  to  the  new  city  with  which  he  replaced  the  elder 
Shechem ;  see  below,  p.  89.  This  is  said  to  be  the  only  case  in  Pales- 
tine where  the  Arabic  nomenclature  has  preserved  a  Greek  place-name, 
in  lieu  of  its  Semitic  predecessor. 

11  It  is  impossible  to  enumerate  the  descriptions  travellers  have 
written;  for  a  few,  see  the  Bibliography.  For  brief  objective  descrip- 
tions of  the  town  and  its  sights  and  inhabitants,  we  may  note  Baede- 
ker, 246 ;  JE,  s.  v.  Samaritans.  For  the  topography,  consult  Rosen, 
ZDMG  xiv,  634;  Guerin,  Samarie,  i,  cc.  xxii-xxviii,  and  SWPM.  ii. 

2 


lS  THE  SAMARITANS 

atmospheric  effects  which  only  humidity  can  give.  The 
water  and  the  warmth  of  the  narrow  valley,  which  in  one 
place  is  only  ioo  yards  wide,  nurse  a  luxuriant  vegetation, 
both  in  grain  crops  and  in  orchards;  no  place  in  Palestine 
would  be  more  fitting  for  Jotham's  Parable  of  the  Trees 
(Ju.  9,  7ff).  The  more  picturesque  descriptions  tell  of  the 
myriads  of  birds  singing  amidst  the  trees,  among  them 
the  bulbul's  voice  being  heard.12  The  streets  of  the  city 
are  cooled  with  the  water-channels  that  run  through  them, 
from  the  fifteen  springs  that  are  found  in  the  town  and 
from  others  outside.13  Above  the  town  lie  green  fields  and 
orchards,  while  higher  up  again  the  more  genuine  Palestin- 
ian scenery  reappears  in  the  steep  and  stony  heights  of  the 
two  mountains,  a  contrast  which  must  make  the  oriental 
Neapolitan  more  than  ever  content  with  the  beautiful  valley 
in  which  his  lot  is  cast.  "  Little  Damascus  "  the  town  has 
been  fondly  called,14  and  such  an  epithet,  the  Prophet  of 
Islam  being  witness,  is  the  highest  compliment  an  oriental 
can  pay.  At  all  events  to  the  senses  of  the  wearied  traveller 
it  must  appear  as  a  veritable  Garden  of  the  Lord,  while 
the  thriftiness  of  the  town  is  a  welcome  relief  to  one  who 
is  accustomed  to  the  ruins  and  desolation  of  the  ancient 
cities  of  Palestine. 

Shechem  is  not  only  at  the  heart  of  Samaria,  but  is  also 
the  junction  of  the  natural  routes  traversing  this  hill-coun- 
try. Through  it  runs  the  ancient  highway  connecting  Juda 
and  Galilee,  on  the  line  of  which  the  Romans  built  one  of 
their  noble  roads.  Its  springs  feed  the  Wady  ash-Shair, 
which  runs  northwest,  giving  the  natural  road  to  the  an- 
cient city  of  Samaria,  and  finally  to  Caesarea  and  the  cities  of 

12  For  impartiality's  sake,  I  should  refer  to  Mills,  who  gives  a  much 
more  prosaic  account  of  Nablus'  charms:  Three  Months'  Residence  at 
Nab  his,  29. 

13  Rosen  gives  a  list  of  these  springs,  I.  c. 

14  Mukaddasi,  quoted  by  Le  Strange,  Palestine  Under  the  Moslems, 

5"- 


SAMARIA  AND  SHECHEM  19 

the  northern  Maritime  Plain.  Just  east  of  Shechem  is  the 
watershed  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Jordan,  and 
the  Wady  Fara  here  affords  easy  access  to  the  latter  valley, 
while  the  great  plain  of  al-Machna  is  the  natural  confluence 
for  many  roads  from  all  directions.  Shechem's  commer- 
cial importance  in  modern  times  is  signified  by  the  fact  that 
it  is  the  junction  of  two  telegraph  lines  from  the  west,  one 
coming  up  from  Joppa,  the  other  over  the  western  heights 
from  Galilee,  meeting  here,  and  thence  running  across 
the  Jordan  to  as-Salt. 

The  early  existence  of  Shechem  is  proved  by  the  tradi- 
tions concerning  Abraham  (Gen.  12,  6)  and  Jacob  {Gen. 
34),  and  also  by  two  extra-Biblical  references  of  the  lid 
Millennium  B.C.  Knudtzon  now  reads  the  name  in  a  Tell- 
Amarna  tablet,15  and  a  reference  to  it  and  its  holy  mountain 
is  found  in  the  Papyrus  Anastasi  I. :  "  the  mount  of  She- 
chem "  (Sakama).10  The  Old  Testament  is  witness  to  its 
importance  in  Israel's  history,  at  least  before  the  rise  of  the 
new  capital  Samaria,  which  eclipsed  it,  until  with  Samaria's 
decay  in  the  Hid  and  IVth  Centuries  A.C.,  Shechem  again 
outstripped  the  rival  and  recovered  its  position  as  the  chief 
city  of  the  district. 

In  this  connection  reference  may  be  made  to  the  question 
whether  Shechem  always  occupied  its  present  site,  for  in  the 
Orient  the  identity  of  name  does  not  involve  continuance 
in  the  same  locality.  Nothing  in  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
proves the  identity  of  old  Shechem  with  Nablus,  and  the 
scene  of  Jotham's  parable  capitally  suits  the  present  site  of 
the  city.     However  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Josephus  and 

15  Knudtzon,  in  Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie,  1899,  p.  112,  to  Tablet  B. 
199   (Winckler,  185),  lines  21-24.     He  reads:    "  Lapaya  and  Shechem 

(mat  Shakmi)  have  given  (pay  ?)  to  the  Chabiri."  See  Steuernagel, 
Einwanderung  der  israelitischen  Stdmme,  120,  who  connects  the  passage 
with  the  transactions  in  Gen.  34. 

16  W.  Max  Miiller,  Asien  u.  Europa,  394;   Sayce,  Patriarchal  Pales- 
tine, 211.    The  date  of  these  Travels  of  a  Mohar  is  about  1300  B.  C. 


20  THE  SAMARITANS 

Pliny  assign  Vespasian's  foundation  of  Neapolis  to  a  place 
originally  called  Mabartha.17  Shechem  may  then  have  lain 
more  to  the  east,  and  if  it  is  to  be  placed  on  the  watershed 
already  described,  its  name,  "  shoulder,"  can  be  explained. 
This  distinction  between  the  elder  Shechem  and  the  "  New- 
City  "  of  Vespasian  is  borne  out  by  Patristic  authorities  and 
also  by  archaeology.  The  Pilgrim  of  Bordeaux  {circa 
333)  writes  as  follows:     "  Civitas  Neapoli.     Ibi  est  Aga- 

zaren  (Gerizim) Inde  ad  pedem  montis  ipsius,  locus 

est  cui  nomen  est  Sichem.  Ibi  positum  est  monumentum 
ubi  positus  est  Joseph,  in  villa  quam  dedit  ei  Jacob  pater 

ejus Inde  passus  mille,  locus  est  cui  nomen  Sechar, 

unde  descendit  mulier  Samaritana  ad  eundem  locum." 
Eusebius  writes  (Onom.  s.  v.  %vxw)  :  "  Sychem  and 
Sikima,  which  is  Salem,  Jacob's  city,  now  deserted."  The 
Mosaic  Map  of  Madaba  likewise  distinguishes  between 
Neapolis  and  Sychem.  The  archaeological  evidence  ob- 
tained by  the  English  Survey  may  also  be  quoted  here:18 
"  The  ruins  of  Nablus  extend  for  a  distance  east  of  the  mod- 
ern town.  Vaults  were  excavated  in  digging  the  founda- 
tions of  the  barracks  [about  half-way  towards  Jacob's 
Well],  and  persons  in  the  city  claim  to  have  title-deeds  of 
buildings  and  shops  in  the  same  direction.  A  long  mound 
with  traces  of  a  rude  wall  exists  between  Balata  and  'As- 
kar,  and  there  is  a  tesselated  pavement  just  east  of  Joseph's 
tomb,  in  which  neighborhood  ruins  are  mentioned  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  and  were  supposed  to  be  those  of  an- 
cient Thebez   (Marino  Sanuto)." 

In  this  connection  rises  the  question  concerning  the  iden- 
tity of  the  city  Sychar  of  Jn.  4,  5,  which  it  has  now  become 
the   fashion  to   identify   with   the   Ain   Askar   lying   1250 

17  BJ  viii,  4,  1 :  Mabartha,  so  Niese,  var.  Mabortha ;  Pliny,  Hist,  nat. 
v,  14,  Mamortha.  This  name  is  doubtless  to  be  explained,  with 
Schwarz,  Exercitationes  historico-critica  in  utrumque  Sam.  Pent.,  25, 
as  representing  the  Aramaic  Ma'abarta,  i.  e.,  Pass. 

18  SWPM  206 ;  cf.  Rosen,  ZDMG  xiv,  639. 


SAMARIA  AND  SHECHEM  21 

meters  NE  of  Jacob's  Well.     As  we  have  seen,  the  Bor- 
deaux Pilgrim  distinguishes  a  Sychar  apart  from  Shechem 
and  Neapolis.    Also  Eusebius,  treating  of  Sychar,  says  that 
it  is  "  before  Neapolis,  near  the  place  which  Jacob  gave  to 
Joseph,  his  son."     On  the  other  hand  Jerome  knows  noth- 
ing of  a  place  Sychar,  and  insists  that  it  is  a  mistake  for 
Shechem,  which  he  also  identifies  with  Neapolis.19     These 
IVth  Century  authorities  therefore  by  no  means  agree.     It 
is  to  be  observed  that  the  elder  Shechem  once  lay  as  close 
to  Jacob's  Well  as  does  Ain  Askar,  so  that  the  Samaritan 
woman   could   easily   have   come    to   draw    water    at    the 
former  place.     Further,  the  Fourth  Gospel  describes  Sychar 
as  a  Polis,  and  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  for  the  exis- 
tence of  a  city  Sychar.     As  to  the  dispute  between  Jerome 
and   the  opposing  authorities,   inasmuch   as  Jerome  takes 
pains  to  make  denial  of  the  existence  of  a  Sychar,  it  may 
be  argued  that  he  is  right,  and  his  opponents  were  rather 
depending  upon  some  tradition  originated  in  support  of  the 
Gospel  text.     Finally,  while  it  is  quite  possible  that  Askar 
is  an  Arabic  corruption  of  Sychar,  nevertheless  in  its  simple 
meaning  of  'askar  as  a  camp,  may  it  not  be  the  later  Arabic 
translation  of  machna,  the  name  of  the  plain,  which  itself 
in  Hebrew  means  a  camp?20     Ain  Askar  would  then  be 
the  Well  of  Al-Machna.     It  appears  to  the  present  writer 
that  a  strong  case  can  still  be  made  out  for  the  identification 
of  Sychar  with  Shechem,  on  the  supposition,  with  Jerome, 
of  a  text-corruption  in  the  text  of   St.  John, —  Sir**/*,   a 
variant  of  2tx^,  having  accidentally  become  2uxap.     The 
reception  of  Jesus  in  the  home-city  of  the  Samaritans  would 
be  no  more  strange  than  the  hospitality  accorded  to  Simon 
Magus  or  to  the  Jerusalem  Apostles  {Acts,  8).21 

19  Epitaphium  Paula:;  Qucestiones  in  Gen.  ad   xlviii,  22;  Onom.  lxvi, 
20  (in  Migne,  respectively:  xx,  888;  xxiii,  1055;  965). 

20  I  find  that  Conder  has  already  suggested  this  etymology ;  PEFQS 
1876,  p.  197. 

21  G.  A.  Smith  sums  up  the  case  for  the  identification  of  Sychar  with 


22  THE  SAMARITANS 

Nablns  itself  is  a  long  narrow  town,  about  two-thirds 
of  a  mile  in  extent,  surrounded  by  a  dilapidated  wall.  In 
strategics  the  town  has  always  been  weak,  as  it  lies  in  the 
hollow  of  an  indefensible  valley,  and  its  walls  could  never 
have  amounted  to  much  more  than  police  barricades.  In- 
deed the  history  of  the  town  shows  that  it  never  was  strong 
enough  to  necessitate  regular  siege,  its  conquerors  always 
easily  pouring  into  its  undefended  bounds.  This  natural 
weakness  was  one  of  the  calamities  of  Northern  Israel, 
which  was  finally  forced  to  leave  its  ancient  capital  for  the 
new  city  of  Samaria,  whereas  Shechem's  southern  rival 
Jerusalem  again  and  again  stood  the  siege  of  invaders 
when  the  rest  of  the  land  had  fallen  to  the  foe.  Neverthe- 
less Shechem  has  survived,  in  that  way  peculiar  to  oriental 
life,  whereby  a  city  is  re-born  like  the  phcenix  out  of  the 
fire  of  destruction,  and  it  contains  within  its  walls  the  only 
fragment  of  the  Hebrew  race  which  has  survived  by  un- 
broken succession  on  Palestinian  soil. 

In  its  structures  the  town  does  not  differ  from  other  ori- 
ental towns.  It  contains  five  mosques,  four  of  which  were 
originally  Crusaders'  churches,  one  of  them  going  back  to 
a  foundation  of  Justinian's.  The  great  arched  bazaar  which 
occupies  a  section  of  the  principal  street  is  said  to  be  the 
finest  in  Palestine,  and  even  to  rival  those  of  the  largest 
cities  of  the  Turkish  empire.  The  shops  are  well-furnished 
with  a  great  variety  of  commodities,  while  the  productive 
power  of  the  community  finds  vent  in  extensive  manufac- 
tures of  woolens  and  soap,  the  latter  product  being  famous 
all  over  Syria. 

The  population  of  Nablus  numbers  about  24,000. 22     The 

Askar,  in  HG  c.  xviii.  Cheyne  has  a  good  review  of  the  data  in  EB 
s.  v.  Sychar,  and  concludes  with  the  view  above  preferred,  insisting  on 
the  purely  Arabic  character  of  '  askar.  The  earlier  students  of  the 
question,  such  as  Robinson  and  Guerin,  rejected  the  identification  of 
Sychar  and  Askar. 
22  These  and  the  following  are  Baedeker's  figures,  ed.  1900.    The  town 


SAMARIA  AND  SHECHEM  23 

great  majority  are  Muslims,  the  remainder  consisting  of 
about  700  Christians,23  152  Samaritans  (in  1901),  and  a 
number  of  Jews.24  The  town  and  district  are  under  a 
local  Mutesellim,  who  is  subordinate  to  the  governor  of 
Jerusalem;  with  his  Diwan,  or  council,  are  associated  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Greeks,  the  Samaritans  (including  the 
Jews),  and  the  Protestants,  as  according  to  Ottoman  rule 
each  community  must  have  its  responsible  spokesman. 

As  in  many  another  earthly  paradise,  so  in  Nablus, 
"  only  man  is  vile."  No  town  in  Palestine  has  so  bad  a 
reputation  for  the  ill-disposition  and  violence  of  its  citizens, 
and  the  Ottoman  government  handles  the  local  elements 
only  with  greatest  delicacy.  Since  the  day  of  Lapaya,  the 
marauder  of  the  Tell-Amarna  period,  Shechem  has  been 
the  scene  of  violence  and  murder.  Here  occurred  the  one 
blot  upon  the  peaceful  scutcheon  of  the  patriarchs  {Gen. 
34)  ;  here  the  headstrong  Abimelek  made  himself  king,  and 
fell  into  feud  with  the  rebellious  citizens  (Ju.  9)  ;  here  the 
tie  with  the  Davidic  dynasty  was  snapped,  and  the  secession 
baptized  in  blood  (1  Ki.  12),  while  its  priests  became  noto- 
rious for  murderous  violence  {Hos.  6,  9).  It  would  be 
impossible  to  enumerate  the  conflicts  which  have  taken  place 
at  Shechem  between  Samaritan  and  Jew,  Samaritan  and 
Roman,  Samaritan  and  Christian;  and  when  Islam  con- 
quered the  region,  although  the  turbulence  of  the  Samari- 
tans was  then  cowed  forever,  the  Arabs  too  fell  subject 
to  the  atmosphere  of  the  place,  and  the  town  and  its  dis- 
trict have  been  notorious  for  the  lawlessness  which  the  in- 
habitants have  shown  toward  the  Ottoman  rule. 

seems  to  have  grown  considerably  since  Petermann's  visit,  when  the 
calculations  given  to  him  by  the  residents  varied  between  12,000  and 

?3  Mostly  of  the  Greek  Church,  but  some  of  the  Latin  Rite,  along 
with  150  Protestants.  _ 

2*  Baedeker  says  merely  "some  Jews."  According  to  Petermann 
they  numbered  some  200.  The  Jews  did  not  return  to  Shechem  until 
the  third  decade  of  the  last  century,  under  the  Egyptian  regime. 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS. 

In  the  southwestern  quarter  of  their  ancient  city,  close 
to  the  path  which  leads  to  the  holy  place  on  Gerizim's  top, 
is  the  Ghetto  of  the  Samaritans.1  They  live  crowded  to- 
gether, being  quite  segregated  from  the  Muslim  population, 
not  only  out  of  desire  of  separation  but  as  well  for  fear  of 
their  violent  neighbors.  According  to  statistics  of  19012 
they  number  152  souls,  and  the  doom  which  confronts  the 
community  is  presented  in  the  proportion  of  males  and 
females,  the  former  numbering  97,  the  latter  only  55.  They 
do  not  marry  outside  of  their  own  body,  the  Jews,  the  only 
race  with  whom  they  might  intermingle,  of  course  refus- 
ing such  alliances.  The  people  call  themselves  by  the  an- 
cient geographical  appellative,  Samerim,  which  they  inter- 
pret however  as  meaning  "  the  Observers,"  i.e.  of  the  Law.3 

Concerning  the  ethnology  of  the  Samaritans,  Robinson 
makes  this  observation :  "  The  physiognomy  of  those  we 
saw  was  not  Jewish;  nor  indeed  did  we  remark  in  it  any 
peculiar  character,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  other  na- 

1  Called  Charat  as-Samira,  the  Quarter  of  the  Samaritans,  although 
incorrectly,  not  being  a  proper  city-quarter.  The  name  also  appears  as 
Charat  as-Samara,  SWPM  204.     Rosen  vocalizes  it  as  Sumereh. 

2  Reference  is  here  made  to  the  valuable  statistics  and  anthropological 
tables  presented  by  H.  M.  Huxley  in  JE  x,  674,  the  materials  for  which 
were  collected  by  the  American  Archaeological  Expedition  to  Syria  in 
1899-1900.  (The  publication  of  the  full  material  by  Huxley  is  prom- 
ised for  an  early  date  as  Part  V.)  The  figures  given  by  travellers  in 
the  XlXth  Century  are  discrepant;  Robinson  estimated  them  in  1838  at 
150,  BR  iii,  106;  Petermann,  in  1853,  at  122  (Reisen,  i,  265);  Mills,  in 
1855,  at  150  (Nablus,  179)  ;  Rogers,  in  the  same  year,  at  197  (Notices, 
16).     SWPM  gives  135  for  the  year  1875,  160  for  1881. 

3  See  Additional  Note  B. 

24 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  25 

tives  of  the  country."  4  But  this  judgment  has  been  con- 
troverted by  almost  all  other  visitors  to  Shechem,  who 
remark  upon  the  distinctiveness  of  the  Samaritan  type,  and 
bear  witness  with  some  surprise  to  its  comparative  nobility 
among  the  races  of  Palestine ;  the  representatives  of  the 
priesthood,  the  only  educated  ones,  have  called  forth  much 
admiration  for  their  intelligence  of  expression  and  dignity 
of  bearing.  The  Rev.  John  Mills,  who  lived  among  them 
for  three  months,  also  paying  them  a  second  visit,  and 
who  seems  to  have  been  a  very  intelligent  observer,  writes 
as  follows  of  the  race  :5  "  I  had  seen  individuals,  among 
Arabs  and  Jews,  of  as  noble  aspect  as  any  one  of  them; 
but  as  a  community,  there  is  nothing  in  Palestine  to  com- 
pare with  them.  A  straight  and  high  forehead,  full  brow, 
large  and  rather  almond-shaped  eye,  aquiline  nose,  some- 
what large  mouth,  and  well-formed  chin,  are  their  chief 
physiological  characteristics ;  and,  with  few  exceptions,  they 
are  tall  and  of  lofty  bearing.  They  seem  to  be  all  of  one 
type,  and  bear  an  unmistakable  family  likeness.  In  this 
they  differ  from  the  Jews,  who  have  assimilated  in  physical 
as  well  as  in  moral  qualities  to  the  nations  among  whom 
they  have  long  dwelt." 

These  impressions  of  travellers  are  corroborated  by  the 
exact  figures  and  scientific  observations  that  are  reported 
in  the  article  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  above  cited.  I 
refer  the  reader  to  the  tables  contained  there,  and  quote 
here  only  the  summary,  as  follows : 

"  The  general  type  of  physiognomy  of  the  Samaritans 
is  distinctly  Jewish,  the  nose  markedly  so.  Von  Luschan 
derives  the  Jews  from  '  the  Hittites,  the  Aryan  Amorites, 
and  the  Semitic  nomads.'  The  Samaritans  may  be  traced 
to  the  same  origin.  The  '  Amorites  were  men  of  great 
stature  '  and  to  them  Von  Luschan  traces  the  blonds  of 

*BR  iii,  106. 

5  Op.  cit.  180 ;  cf.  182,  184. 


26  THE  SAMARITANS 

the  modern  Jews.  With  still  greater  certainty  the  tall  stat- 
ure and  the  presence  of  a  blond  type  among  the  Samari- 
tans may  be  referred  to  the  same  source.6  The  cephalic 
index,  much  lower  than  that  of  the  modern  Jews,  may  be 
accounted  for  by  a  former  direct  influence  of  the  Semitic 
nomads,  now  represented  by  the  Bedouins,  whose  cephalic 
index  according  to  measurement  of  114  males,  is  76.^ 
The  Samaritans  have  thus  preserved  the  ancient  type  in  its 
purity;  and  they  are  to-day  the  sole,  though  degenerate, 
representatives  of  the  ancient  Hebrews." 

The  principal  employment  of  the  Samaritans  is  petty 
trading,  a  few  of  them  being  engaged  in  manufacture,  es- 
pecially of  woolens ;  none  of  them  are  agriculturists.  Their 
past  history  shows  that  their  forte  has  lain,  like  that  of 
their  Jewish  relatives,  in  finance,  and  they  appear  to  have 
maintained  an  honorable  reputation  in  the  handling  of 
moneys,  for  down  into  the  past  century  individuals  of  their 
number  have  regularly  acted  as  the  fiscal  agents  of  the  local 
government.  Travellers  vary  in  their  impressions  concern- 
ing the  virtues  of  the  Samaritans;  many  are  disgusted  by 
their  participation  in  the  everlasting  oriental  demand  for 
bakhsheesh,  "  the  one  Arabic  word  the  traveller  never  for- 
gets," as  a  French  scholar  has  said.  But  while  ready  to 
drive  hard  bargains  for  fees  and  manuscripts,  and  equal  to 
deceit  in  imposing  upon  the  credulous  tourist,  no  charges  of 
commercial  dishonesty  or  faithlessness  have  been  laid 
against  them.  The  retention  of  their  sacred  volume  of  the 
Law  of  Moses  against  the  captivating  attempts  that  have 
been  made  for  its  purchase  by  European  scholars,  is  demon- 
stration that  they  can  put  principle  before  Mammon.  Some 
travellers  speak  very  warmly  concerning  the  social  traits  of 
the  perishing  community.     The  violence  and  extortion  from 

6  Earlier  in  the  same  article  it  is  shown  that  the  Samaritans  are  the 
tallest  people  in  Syria.  Also  the  figures  given  for  pigmentation  reveal 
"a  distinct  blond  type  noticeable  in  the  race." 

7  That  of  the  Samaritans  is  78.1,  of  the  modern  Jews,  82. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  2? 

which  the  people  of  Nablus  have  suffered  in  the  XlXth 
Century  have  reduced  the  Samaritans  to  a  condition  of 
poverty. 

The  Samaritans  have  adopted  the  Arabic  vernacular  to 
such  an  extent  that  only  the  few  learned  ones  among  them 
carry  on  the  tradition  of  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  which 
were  the  earlier  tongues  of  the  people.8  Every  Samaritan 
man  possesses  two  names,  one  of  which  is  generally  com- 
posed of  names  taken  from  the  Pentateuch,  especially  from 
its  heroes,  while  the  other  is  drawn  from  the  common 
Arabic  nomenclature  for  persons.  Despite  the  assimilations 
with  the  Muslim  population  into  which  the  Samaritans  have 
drifted,  their  political  masters  have  taken  pains  to  keep 
them  conscious  of  their  inferior  position.  Following  the 
principles  of  the  caliph  Omar,  who  required  distinguishing 
costumes  for  unbelievers,  an  Abbaside  caliph  ordered  that 
the  Samaritans  should  appear  in  public  with  a  red  turban 
on  the  head,  a  regulation  which  has  been  more  or  less  strin- 
gently enforced,  according  to  the  temper  of  the  govern- 
ment.9 Their  native  costume,  especially  on  gala  occasions, 
is  white. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  inner  life  of  the 
Samaritans  as  a  religious  community,  and  this  phrase  means, 
it  must  be  remembered,  for  an  oriental  sect  practically  the 
whole  of  the  community's  life.  Here  a  thesis  must  be 
advanced  of  which  the  whole  of  the  following  work  gives 
proof,  and  to  which  all  modern  investigators  bear  testimony. 
Even  as  the  Samaritans  are  shown  by  anthropology  to  be 
Hebrews  of  the  Hebrews,  so  the  study  of  their  religion  and 
manners  demonstrates  them  to  be  nothing  else  than  a  Jewish 
sect.  This  is  not  the  traditional  view  concerning  their 
origin,  nor  is  it  as  yet  generally  known  to  the  lay  mind. 

8  For  the  languages,  see  Chap.  XIV. 

8  Not  as  Petermann,  op.  cit.  274,  says,  a  "  Mamluk  Sultan,"  but  the 
Abbaside  Mutawakkil ;  see  below,  p.  129. 


28  THE  SAMARITANS 

Samaritanism  is  still  commonly  looked  upon  as  a  mixed 
religion  containing  elements  of  Judaism  and  ancient  hea- 
thenism, and  although  the  compound  is  not  supposed  to  have 
been  analyzed,  it  is  considered  to  be  full  of  theological 
heresies  and  moral  corruption. 

Subsequent  chapters  will  expand  and  substantiate  the 
points  at  present  only  summarily  given.  This  chapter  will 
treat  only  of  the  customs  of  the  Samaritans  as  they  have 
lain  under  the  observation  of  Europeans  for  over  three  cen- 
turies. But  their  religion  may  be  summed  up  in  these  few 
words.  It  is  a  monotheism  identical  with  that  of  Judaism, 
whose  very  terms  they  use  throughout,  while  it  bitterly 
opposes  any  attempt  to  associate  with  God  other  deities, 
as  in  polytheism,  or  to  find  in  him  any  distinctions,  as  in 
Christianity.  It  is  a  spiritual  religion,  which  not  only  re- 
jects any  representation  of  Deity,  but  even  eschews,  after 
the  letter  of  the  Second  Commandment,  all  pictorial  de- 
signs.10 It  is  moreover  an  ethical  religion  which  has  flow- 
ered in  just  such  virtues  and  which  is  circumscribed  by 
just  such  limitations  as  mark  what  is  known  as  orthodox 
Judaism.  We  will  now  consider  those  points  of  the  life- of 
the  Samaritan  community  which  come  under  the  eye  of  the 
observer,  and  mark,  as  we  proceed,  wherein  they  agree 
with,  and  wherein  they  differ  from,  the  forms  of  Judaism, 
leaving  to  subsequent  Chapters  the  history  of  the  sect  and 
the  formal  presentation  of  its  theology.11 

The  intelligent  visitor  to  Nablus  naturally  soon  takes  his 
way  to  the  Samaritan  quarter,  and  discovers  their  syna- 
gogue, which  is  called    after  the  same  name  used  by  the 

10  Petermann,  op.  cit.  282,  relates  that  on  the  visit  of  the  highpriest 
to  his  room,  the  latter  requested  him  to  turn  the  face  of  some  hanging 
portraits  to  the  wall. 

11  The  facts  in  the  following  pages  are  drawn  from  the  statements  of 
the  travellers  already  cited,  from  the  Samaritan  correspondence  with 
Europeans,  and  in  some  cases  from  other  Samaritan  literature.  In 
moot  questions  or  points  of  particular  interest,  reference  is  made  to 
the  authorities,  all  of  whom  are  listed  in  the  Bibliography. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  29 

Jews  for  their  places  of  worship,  Keriisat  as-Samira,  the 
Samaritan  Synagogue.  It  is  also  commonly  called  among 
themselves  Bit  Allah,  the  house  of  God.12  This  is  a  plain 
building,  of  no  great  antiquity.13  It  contains  a  room  whose 
greatest  length  is  37  ft.,  5  in. ;  on  its  right  hand  and  run- 
ning for  about  two-thirds  of  the  length  of  the  main  portion 
is  an  extension  with  a  raised  floor.  On  the  left  is  a  cur- 
tained recess,  about  4%  ft.  sq.  There  is  no  adornment, 
and  light  is  admitted  only  by  a  glazed  circular  aperture  in 
the  roof. 

Entrance  is  had  upon  application  to  the  highpriest, — 
Kohen  hag-Gadol,  he  is  called  in  Hebrew,  or  in  good 
Arabic,  the  Imam.  He  is  of  the  blood  of  Levi,  the  direct 
Aaronic  line  having  failed,  according  to  Samaritan  testi- 
mony in  the  XVIIth  Century,  although  this  fact  it  has  be- 
come the  fiction  to  deny.14  With  him  is  associated  a  Le- 
vitical  relative,  the  Shammash,  or  minister,  who  performs 
most  of  the  service,  but  the  priest  is  required  for  the  bless- 
ing. 

This  great  man,  who  always  appears  in  robes  of  white, 
is  not  too  dignified  to  demand  of  the  visitor  a  large  bakh- 
sheesh  for  the  privilege  of  inspecting  the  synagogue.  The 
terms  of  the  bargain  having  been  arranged,  the  stranger  de- 
sires to  look  upon  the  sacred  roll  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  the 
greatest  treasure  of  the  Samaritans.  This  is  contained  in 
the  recess  already  mentioned,  which  is  called  the  mugbach, 
or  altar,  even  as  the  Jews  call  the  synagogal  ark  contain- 
ing the  scroll  the  hcikal,  or  temple.  The  recess  has  an  im- 
portant function  in  the  services,  as  it  corresponds  to  the 

12  Mills,  op.  cit.  222. 

13  The  Samaritans  claim  that  the  neighboring  mosque,  Chizn  Ya'qub, 
was  originally  their  synagogue,  which  was  confiscated  about  1300;  see 
below,  pp.  134,  273.  The  present  synagogue  contains  an  inscription 
recording  the  restoration  of  the  building  A.  D.  171 1,  and  asserting  that 
it  had  been  built  320  years  before.  The  inscription  is  given  by  Rosen, 
ZDMG  xiv,  624. 

14  See  p.  139. 


30  THE  SAMARITANS 

michrab  of  the  Muslim  mosque,  that  is,  the  niche  which  in- 
dicates the  qibla,  or  direction  of  prayer  —  for  the  Muslim 
towards  Mecca,  for  the  Samaritan  towards  Gerizim;  the 
whole  congregation  face  this  point  in  their  devotions  in  the 
synagogue.  The  recess  contains  a  plain  chest,  which  holds 
rolls  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  unimportant  copies  of  which  are 
shown  to  the  ignorant  tourist,  but  amongst  them  the  great- 
est treasure  of  all,  a  codex  which,  it  is  claimed,  was  written 
by  Abishua,  the  great-grandson  of  Aaron.15  How  old  this 
roll  is  cannot  be  ascertained,  for  it  is  never  submitted  to 
examination,  only  a  section  being  exposed  to  view  at  a 
time.  But  its  sacredness  in  the  eyes  of  the  Samaritans  and 
its  appearance  of  relative  antiquity  naturally  arouse  the 
ambition  of  scholars  for  its  acquisition,  or  at  least  for  its 
inspection,  a  wish  that  may  never  be  gratified  until  the 
community  has  perished.  The  exhibition  of  one  of  the 
rolls,  although  not  of  that  sacred  codex,  is  an  important 
part  of  the  Sabbath  service.  At  the  proper  point,  the  min- 
ister brings  forth  the  roll,  and  presents  it  to  the  congrega- 
tion, opened  at  the  Aaronic  blessing,  Num.  6,  24-27,  which 
passage  is  then  kissed  by  the  worshippers.16 

It  has  been  said  that  these  rolls  contain  the  Law  of 
Moses.  They  are  indeed  codices  of  the  Hebrew  Penta- 
teuch, containing  a  somewhat  variant  text,  with  a  few  in- 
tentional alterations  made  in  support  of  the  peculiar  tenet 
of  the  Samaritans  concerning  the  holiness  of  Gerizim,17 
along  with  many  textual  variants,  and  written  in  the  Samar- 
itan script,  an  alphabet  derived  from  the  Phoenician  and 
more  antique  than  the  Hebrew  square  character.18  The 
Law  of  Moses  is  the  Samaritan  Bible,  and  herein  is  the 
first  great  difference  between  this  sect  and  the  Jews,  who 

is  See  Chap.  XIV,  §  6. 

16  Hence  in  many  copies  of  the  Law  this  and  other  sacred  passages 
are  found  blurred  to  illegibility  by  the  contact  of  the  faithful. 

17  See  Chap.  XII,  §  6. 
«  See  Chap.  XIV,  §  4. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  31 

include  in  their  Scriptures,  although  on  a  lower  plane  than 
the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa. 

The  services  in  the  synagogue  are  said  to  be  decorous, 
although  the  rendering  of  the  service  and  the  music  sound 
barbarous  to  European  ears.  The  Samaritans  once  pos- 
sessed an  extensive  liturgy,19  much  of  which  in  its  written 
form  is  now  lost  to  them,  and  is  probably  to  be  found  only 
in  European  libraries.  The  portions  that  are  still  used  are 
always  recited  from  memory,  and  concern  the  chief  solemni- 
ties of  life,  the  feasts  and  fasts,  birth,  marriage  and  death. 
But  probably  the  Samaritan  memory  has  retained  but  a 
small  part  of  its  one-time  liturgical  wealth.  As  the  lan- 
guage of  all  their  offices  is  in  either  Hebrew  or  Aramaic, 
tongues  for  centuries  lost  to  vernacular  usage,  and  as  in 
the  last  half  of  the  XlXth  Century  there  has  been  a  sad 
decline  in  the  learning  of  the  priesthood,  the  majority  of 
the  people  know  nothing  of  what  is  said  in  the  services,  and 
the  ministers  themselves  have  often  only  a  superficial  knowl- 
edge of  the  words  they  use.  The  Law,  it  may  be  said,  is 
read  through  once  in  a  year,  thus  differing  from  the  Jew- 
ish arrangement  which  distributes  its  sections  over  three 
years.  The  lections  are  begun  with  the  month  Tishri.20 
There  is  also  a  rude  kind  of  music,  with  a  number  of  vari- 
ous airs,  for  which  the  Samaritans  claim  a  high  tradition.21 

We  have  seen  that  the  Samaritans  possess  three  of  the 
great  institutes  of  Judaism,  the  synagogue,  the  Law  of 
Moses,  the  priesthood,  the  last  of  which  has  only  a  tradi- 
tional survival  amongst  the  Jews.  The  highpriest  is  the 
theocratic  head  of  the  community,  he  is  the  authority  both 
spiritual  and  secular;  after  the  rule  of  the  old  Jewish  state 
and  of  the  early  Christian  Church,  believers  dare  not  go 

19  See  Chap.  XIV,  §  10. 

20  For  the  order  of  lections,  see  Cowley,  JQR  vii,  134.     The  lectional 
divisions  are  called  qagin. 

21  Grove  (Nabloos)  and  Mills,  op.  cit.  230,  seem  to  be  the  only  ones 
who  have  noticed  the  music. 


2,2  THE  SAMARITANS 

to  law  against  one  another  before  infidels.22  The  priests 
also  combine  both  the  sacerdotal  and  the  teaching  functions ; 
the  sect  has  never  developed  the  difference  between  the 
priests  and  the  doctors  of  the  Law  to  the  extent  which 
marks  Judaism,  and  in  modern  times  the  former  possess 
all  the  learning  of  the  community,  although  the  literature 
shows  that  in  earlier  days  laymen  were  also  masters  in 
theology.23  The  old  Nazirite  rule  is  still  observed  by  the 
priests,  that  no  razor  shall  touch  their  head ;  24  they  are 
specially  careful  about  defilement,  and  avoid  contact  with  a 
dead  body.  They  always  wash  before  handling  the  rolls  of 
Scripture. 

The  laymen  also  possess  their  traditional  claims.  They 
are  all  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  except  those  of  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  but  this  traditional  branch  of  the  people,  which, 
the  Chronicles  assert,  was  established  in  Gaza  in  earlier 
days,  seems  to  have  disappeared.25  There  exists  a  strong 
aristocratic  feeling  amongst  the  different  families  in  this 
petty  community,  and  some  are  very  proud  over  their  own 
pedigree  and  the  great  men  it  has  produced.  In  the  serv- 
ices the  laymen  also  wear  white  robes,  and  have  some  an- 
tiphonal  parts  to  recite,  either  from  memory  or  with  the 
use  of  books.  They  do  not  use  the  Tephillin,  the  frontlets 
or  phylacteries  of  the  Jews,  nor  the  fringes,  nor  the  Mezu- 
zot,  or  prayer-boxes  for  the  door-posts.  The  reason  given 
by  them  for  the  non-use  of  the  Tephillin  is  such  a  one  as 
a  Christian  would  give,  that  the  law  is  to  be  spiritually 
observed.  The  priest  wears  at  the  reading  of  the  Law  a 
talith,  but  without  fringes.26     The  women  are  not  admitted 

22  See  the  Samaritan  Epistle  to  Kautzsch,  ZDPV  viii,  149. 

23  Abu'l  Fath,  129,  speaks  of  the  Wise  Men,  adding  that  "  the  priests 
as  a  body  are  not  called  Wise  Men." 

24  There  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  the  Nazirite  profession  in  Chron. 
Neub.  459. 

25  See  p.  149. 

26  See  N.  ei  E.,  123,  218;  Mills,  op.  cit.  192.  The  former  passage 
seems  to  indicate  the  use  of  some  kind  of  fringes,  but  the  custom  was 
denied  by  the  priest  at  Mills'  visit. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  33 

to  the  synagogue,  even  as  the  rule  is  amongst  the  oriental 
Jews  to  this  day.  They,  as  well  as  the  men,  have  a  morn- 
ing prayer  to  recite,  in  this  differing  from  Jewish  custom. 
They  also  follow  the  ancient  custom  of  keeping  their  hair,27 
which  they  never  shave  off,  as  do  the  Muslim  and  Jewish 
women  upon  marriage.  There  is  no  Minyan,  or  minimum 
of  ten  persons,  as  in  the  Jewish  law,  for  the  observance  of 
a  service. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  services  on  the  Sab- 
bath. This  cardinal  Jewish  institution  is  observed  by  the 
Samaritans  with  like  solemnity  to  the  Jews,  but  with  far 
greater  rigor,  for  the  former  have  never  developed  that 
casuistry,  which  Jesus  so  often  attacked,  whereby  the  ex- 
plicit directions  of  the  Law  could  be  circumvented.  They 
stay  strictly  within  doors  on  the  Sabbath,  except  to  go  to 
the  synagogue,  and  have  none  of  the  Jewish  fiction  of  the 
Erub,  whereby  several  houses  or  a  whole  street  could  be 
artificially  designated  as  a  single  tenement ;  nor  is  there  any 
"  Sabbath-day's  journey."  They  follow  strictly  the  injunc- 
tions of  Exodus  not  to  light  a  fire  on  the  Sabbath,  nor  may 
they  procure  the  service  of  Gentiles  for  this  convenience, 
as  in  Judaism;  nor  may  they  use  any  contrivances  to  keep 
their  food  warm,  which  must  all  be  cooked  the  day  before. 
It  is  thus  seen  that  they  are  purists  and  literalists,  and 
closely  resemble,  in  their  lack  of  a  tradition  of  the  elders 
which  mitigates  the  rigor  of  the  Law,  the  Sadducees,  with 
whom,  as  we  shall  later  see,  they  are  historically  connected. 

From  the  weekly  Sabbath  we  naturally  pass  to  the  sacred 
year  of  the  Samaritans.  The  Samaritan  year  is  of  the  same 
nature  and  has  the  same  months  as  that  of  the  Jews,  the 
secular  or  economic  year  beginning  in  the  autumn,  with 
Tishri,  the  ecclesiastical  year  in  the  spring,  with  Nisan. 
The  months  have  29  or  30  days,  and  a  second  Adar  is  in- 
tercalated when  necessary  to  avoid  the  variation  of  the  lunar 

27  Cf.  1  Cor.  11,  2ff. 
3 


$2  THE  SAMARITANS 

to  law  against  one  another  before  infidels.22  The  priests 
also  combine  both  the  sacerdotal  and  the  teaching  functions ; 
the  sect  has  never  developed  the  difference  between  the 
priests  and  the  doctors  of  the  Law  to  the  extent  which 
marks  Judaism,  and  in  modern  times  the  former  possess 
all  the  learning  of  the  community,  although  the  literature 
shows  that  in  earlier  days  laymen  were  also  masters  in 
theology.23  The  old  Nazirite  rule  is  still  observed  by  the 
priests,  that  no  razor  shall  touch  their  head ;  24  they  are 
specially  careful  about  defilement,  and  avoid  contact  with  a 
dead  body.  They  always  wash  before  handling  the  rolls  of 
Scripture. 

The  laymen  also  possess  their  traditional  claims.  They 
are  all  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  except  those  of  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  but  this  traditional  branch  of  the  people,  which, 
the  Chronicles  assert,  was  established  in  Gaza  in  earlier 
days,  seems  to  have  disappeared.25  There  exists  a  strong 
aristocratic  feeling  amongst  the  different  families  in  this 
petty  community,  and  some  are  very  proud  over  their  own 
pedigree  and  the  great  men  it  has  produced.  In  the  serv- 
ices the  laymen  also  wear  white  robes,  and  have  some  an- 
tiphonal  parts  to  recite,  either  from  memory  or  with  the 
use  of  books.  They  do  not  use  the  Tephillin,  the  frontlets 
or  phylacteries  of  the  Jews,  nor  the  fringes,  nor  the  Mezu- 
zot,  or  prayer-boxes  for  the  door-posts.  The  reason  given 
by  them  for  the  non-use  of  the  Tephillin  is  such  a  one  as 
a  Christian  would  give,  that  the  law  is  to  be  spiritually 
observed.  The  priest  wears  at  the  reading  of  the  Law  a 
talith,  but  without  fringes.26     The  women  are  not  admitted 

22  See  the  Samaritan  Epistle  to  Kautzsch,  ZDPV  viii,  149. 

23  Abu'l  Fath,  129,  speaks  of  the  Wise  Men,  adding  that  "  the  priests 
as  a  body  are  not  called  Wise  Men." 

24  There  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  the  Nazirite  profession  in  Chron. 
Neub.  459. 

25  See  p.  149. 

26  See  N.  ei  E.,  123,  218;  Mills,  op.  cit.  192.  The  former  passage 
seems  to  indicate  the  use  of  some  kind  of  fringes,  but  the  custom  was 
denied  by  the  priest  at  Mills'  visit. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  33 

to  the  synagogue,  even  as  the  rule  is  amongst  the  oriental 
Jews  to  this  day.  They,  as  well  as  the  men,  have  a  morn- 
ing prayer  to  recite,  in  this  differing  from  Jewish  custom. 
They  also  follow  the  ancient  custom  of  keeping  their  hair,27 
which  they  never  shave  off,  as  do  the  Muslim  and  Jewish 
women  upon  marriage.  There  is  no  Minyan,  or  minimum 
of  ten  persons,  as  in  the  Jewish  law,  for  the  observance  of 
a  service. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  services  on  the  Sab- 
bath. This  cardinal  Jewish  institution  is  observed  by  the 
Samaritans  with  like  solemnity  to  the  Jews,  but  with  far 
greater  rigor,  for  the  former  have  never  developed  that 
casuistry,  which  Jesus  so  often  attacked,  whereby  the  ex- 
plicit directions  of  the  Law  could  be  circumvented.  They 
stay  strictly  within  doors  on  the  Sabbath,  except  to  go  to 
the  synagogue,  and  have  none  of  the  Jewish  fiction  of  the 
Erub,  whereby  several  houses  or  a  whole  street  could  be 
artificially  designated  as  a  single  tenement ;  nor  is  there  any 
"  Sabbath-day's  journey."  They  follow  strictly  the  injunc- 
tions of  Exodus  not  to  light  a  fire  on  the  Sabbath,  nor  may 
they  procure  the  service  of  Gentiles  for  this  convenience, 
as  in  Judaism;  nor  may  they  use  any  contrivances  to  keep 
their  food  warm,  which  must  all  be  cooked  the  day  before. 
It  is  thus  seen  that  they  are  purists  and  literalists,  and 
closely  resemble,  in  their  lack  of  a  tradition  of  the  elders 
which  mitigates  the  rigor  of  the  Law,  the  Sadducees,  with 
whom,  as  we  shall  later  see,  they  are  historically  connected. 

From  the  weekly  Sabbath  we  naturally  pass  to  the  sacred 
year  of  the  Samaritans.  The  Samaritan  year  is  of  the  same 
nature  and  has  the  same  months  as  that  of  the  Jews,  the 
secular  or  economic  year  beginning  in  the  autumn,  with 
Tishri,  the  ecclesiastical  year  in  the  spring,  with  Nisan. 
The  months  have  29  or  30  days,  and  a  second  Adar  is  in- 
tercalated when  necessary  to  avoid  the  variation  of  the  lunar 

27  Cf.  1  Cor.  11,  2ff. 
3 


34  THE  SAMARITANS 

year  from  the  solar,  which  would  result  in  the  gradual  re- 
cession of  the  sacred  seasons  through  the  year.  The  times 
of  the  new  moons  and  of  the  beginning  of  the  two  kinds 
of  year  are  calculated  by  the  priests  in  advance  for  a  short 
period,  and  the  results  used  to  be  announced  to  the  scattered 
communities.  The  Samaritans  appear  never  to  have 
adopted  the  Metonic  Cycle,  by  which,  in  the  IVth  Century, 
the  Jews  finally  regulated  their  year,  but  still  depend  upon 
empirical  observation.  As  late  as  1820  such  a  table  was 
drawn  up  and  sent  to  the  supposed  brethren  in  Europe.28 
The  Samaritan  Passover  and  other  feasts  therefore  do  not 
necessarily  coincide  in  date  with  those  of  the  Jews. 

The  Samaritans  celebrate  the  seven  sacred  seasons  ap- 
pointed in  the  calendar  of  the  Law,  Lev.  23.  Three  of 
them,  those  which  in  ancient  times  were  the  chief  feasts, 
namely,  Passover,  Pentecost  and  Booths,  are  always  cele- 
brated on  Mount  Gerizim,  unless,  as  often  has  happened, 
even  for  terms  of  years,  they  are  prevented  by  Muslim 
fanaticism;  in  such  case  the  solemnities,  including  the  Pass- 
over sacrifice,  are  celebrated  in  the  town.29  We  must  ac- 
cordingly make  a  diversion  to  observe  Mount  Gerizim  and 
the  sanctity  which  it  holds  in  Samaritan  eyes. 

The  article  of  faith  in  Gerizim  is  the  great  differentiating 
tenet  between  the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews ;  if  they  yield  this 
heresy,  teaches  a  Talmudic  tractate,  they  can  be  readmitted 
to  the  true  Israel.30  Doubtless  since  prehistoric  times  both 
the  mountains  of  Shechem,  Ebal  and  Gerizim,  were  counted 
amongst  the  most  holy  of  "  the  highplaces  "  of  Palestine ; 
as  we  have  seen  the  Egyptian  traveller  of  the  Xlllth  Cen- 
tury B.  C,  makes  an  allusion  to  one  of  them.31     Of  the 

28  See  quite   fully  on   this   subject,   Mills,   op.   cit.  240.     See   further 
Chap.  XIV,  §  12. 

29  For  the  interruption  of  the  visits  to  Gerizim,  see  p.  141 ;  for  the 
celebration  of  the  Passover  in  Shechem,  N.  et  E.  72. 

30  See  Chap.  XII,  §§  2,  6;  Chap.  XI. 

31  See  above,  p.  19. 


o 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  35 

two  Ebal  is  the  higher  (3076  ft.  above  the  sea),  and  the 
more  commanding  in  its  noble  prospect,  while  Gerizim  has 
an  altitude  of  only  2848  ft.32  According  to  Hebrew  tra- 
dition, upon  the  conquest  of  the  land,  these  two  mountains 
formed  the  amphitheatre  for  the  great  convocation  of  all 
Israel,  when  the  curses  were  recited  from  Ebal,  and  the 
blessings  from  Gerrim  (Dt.  27;  Jos.  8,  3off).  The  com- 
minations  alone  are  given  in  the  story  of  the  rite,  a  fact 
which  gives  greater  prominence  to  Ebal ;  this  was  felt  by 
the  Samaritans  doubtless  because  of  Jewish  taunts,  and 
they  deliberately  altered  the  text  in  Dt.  27,  4,  so  that  the 
stones  of  Jordan  and  the  altar  should  be  reared  on  Geri- 
zim.33 There  can  be  no  doubt,  despite  the  assent  of  such 
a  scholar  as  Kennicott,  that  the  Samaritan  reading  is  a 
falsification.  But  the  reason  why  Ebal  was  chosen  for  the 
curses,  which  appear  as  the  more  important  part  of  the 
ceremony,  was  simply  due  to  the  fact  that  it  lay  on  the 
north,  the  side  of  ill-omen.  Gerizim  then  would  be  the 
auspicious  one  of  the  pair  for  worship,  and  the  Samaritans 
have  in  all  probability  preserved  the  ancient  tradition  con- 
cerning the  relative  religious  worth  of  the  two.34  On 
Ebal's  top  only  ruins  of  a  very  rude  construction,  a  great 
enclosure  90  ft.  sq.,  have  been  discovered,35  while  the  ruins 
on  Gerizim  are  much  more  extensive  and  of  considerable 
architectural  importance. 

The  easiest  path  from  Nablus  to  Gerizim's  top  is  one 
which  leads  from  the  Samaritan  quarter  up  a  defile ;  follow- 
ing this  the  traveller,  after  nearly  an  hour's  climb,  reaches 
the  eastern  summit  of  Gerizim,  upon  or  near  which  are 

32  The  Samaritans  deny  the  greater  height  of  Ebal,  in  fact  hold  that 
Gerizim  is  the  highest  of  all  mountains. 

33  See  Chap.  XII,  §  6,  for  this  falsification,  and  also  for  the  Samari- 
tan legends  connected  with  Gerizim. 

34  This  superstition  as  to  points  of  the  compass  would  be  enhanced 
by  the  comparative  bleakness  of  Ebal's  southern  slope,  seared  by  the 
sun's  heat;  it  is  also  more  difficult  of  access. 

™SWPM  186. 


36  THE  SAMARITANS 

found  all  the  sites  and  ruins  of  interest.  At  the  northern 
and  eastern  end  of  the  natural  platform  lie  the  remains  of 
what  once  was  a  massive  and  noble  structure.  The  history 
of  the  building  is  a  story  common  to  the  holy  places  of  the 
Orient.  One  compartment  of  the  enclosure  is  now  used  as 
a  Muslim  mosque;  the  octagonal  building  situated  in  the 
midst  is  doubtless  the  Church  of  the  Virgin  Mary  erected 
by  the  emperor  Zeno,  which  succeeded  a  Roman  temple, 
while  this  heathen  structure  was  preceded  by  the  Samaritan 
temple,  destroyed  by  John  Hyrcanus  in  the  lid  Century 
B.  C,  and  built  according  to  tradition  by  Sanballat  the  re- 
puted founder  of  the  sect  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
And  behind  the  history  of  these  respective  fanes  stretches 
the  succession  of  primitive  cults,  of  Yahwe  and  of  Baal 
and  of  many  another  deity,  back  into  the  beginnings  of 
history.  But  it  is  only  probability  that  leads  the  archaeolo- 
gist to  find  here  the  site  of  the  Samaritan  temple;  no  local 
tradition  corroborates  it,  and  the  Samaritans  ignore  it.3G 

On  the  west  side  of  these  ruins  are  the  Twelve  Stones, 
which  according  to  Samaritan  tradition  are  the  stones 
Joshua  brought  from  the  Jordan  and  set  up  in  this  place, 
Jos.  4.  These  seem  to  be  the  remains  of  an  upper  tier  of 
stones  forming  the  edge  of  some  ancient  platform.  At  a 
distance  of  240  ft.  to  the  south  of  the  ancient  temple  lies  the 
holiest  spot  in  Samaritan  eyes;  this  is  a  platform  of  natural 
rock,  about  48x36  ft.  In  its  southern  end  is  a  hollow,  like 
the  depressions  which  are  found  in  many  of  the  Syrian 
rock-altars,  designed  doubtless  for  the  collection  of  the  sac- 
rificial blood.  At  the  northwestern  end  is  a  cistern  lined 
with  primitive  masonry,  which  may  have  been  a  natural 
cave.     To    the    Samaritans    this    stone,    the    Sakhra,37    is 

36  See,  for  the  ruins  and  holy  sites  on  Gerizim,  C.  W.  Wilson,  Ebal 
and  Gerizim,  in  PEFQS,  1873,  p.  66  (with  plan),  containing  the  results 
of  explorations  made  by  Wilson  and  Lieut.  Anderson  in  1866;  Guerin, 
Samarie,  i,  c.  xxv;  SWPM  187. 

37  The  priests  are  sometimes  designated  as  Priests  of  the  Stone ;  see 
JBL  1906,  pp.  34,  36. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  $J 

the  Holy  of  Holies,  which  a  member  of  the  community 
approaches  only  with  bared  feet ;  the  tradition  is  that  the 
temple  was  built  over  the  cave.  This  stony  projection  with 
its  cave  and  pool  for  blood  reminds  us  at  once  of  the  cor- 
responding Sakhra,  or  holy  stone,  and  cave  which  have 
been  the  immemorial  sanctuary  on  Mount  Zion.  In  the 
south-eastern  quarter  of  the  top  of  Gerizim,  according  to 
tradition,  was  the  site  of  Abraham's  sacrifice  on  Moria, 
while  the  seven  steps  leading  down  into  a  neighboring  trench 
are  those  by  which  Adam  descended  when  he  was  expelled 
from  Paradise.  For  almost  every  sacred  incident  from  the 
beginning  of  history  to  its  consummation  is  connected  by 
Samaritan  credulity  with  the  top  of  Gerizim.38 

Strangely  enough  it  is  not  at  these  sites  consecrated  by 
tradition  that  the  Samaritan  celebrates  his  holiest  rite,  the 
Passover.  But  the  celebration  takes  place  at  a  point  which 
is  reached  by  the  path  above  described  about  ten  minutes 
before  arriving  at  the  top  of  the  mountain.  There  is  noth- 
ing distinctive  about  the  spot,  which  is  surrounded  by  di- 
lapidated stone  walls  and  contains  some  sunken  trenches. 
Probably  it  has  been  the  malice  of  the  Muslims  that  has 
driven  the  sect  to  this  insignificant  piece  of  land.  We  read 
in  a  Chronicle  how  a  benefactor  from  amongst  them  in  the 
middle  of  the  XVIIIth  Century  bought  from  the  Muslims 
a  piece  of  ground  on  the  mountain,39  and  we  may  suppose 
that  this  is  the  lot  which  the  Samaritans  still  use  in  lieu 
of  the  holier  sites  from  which  they  have  been  debarred. 

It  is-  within  this  enclosure  that  the  Samaritans  celebrate 
their  only  sacrifice,  the  Passover,  and  here  alone  in  the  world 
is  that   historic  rite  of  Israel  maintained.40      No  wonder 

38  For  lists  of  the  other  holy  places  as  claimed  by  the  Samaritans  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Shechem,  see  SWPM  2i8f ;  Conder,  PEFQS  1876, 
p.  192. 

39  See  p.  139. 

40  The  family  Passover  of  the  Jews  is  only  a  symbolic  rite,  not  a 
sacrifice. 


38  THE  SAMARITANS 

then  that  both  lovers  of  the  Bible  history  and  students  of 
antiquity  have  eagerly  availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity 
to  witness  the  survival  of  this  decaying  ceremony,  so  laden 
with  historic  memories.  Petermann  first,  and  many  ob- 
servers since  have  witnessed  the  Samaritan  Passover,  and 
the  reader  is  recommended  to  turn  to  their  easily  accessible 
descriptions  for  graphic  accounts  of  the  ceremony.41  Here 
only  an  outline  of  the  function  can  be  given. 

The  solemnity  is  a  veritable  Haj,  or  pilgrim-feast.  The 
whole  community  proceeds  to  the  place  of  sacrifice  on  Mount 
Gerizim,  allowing  abundance  of  time  for  the  preparations. 
The  tents  are  pitched,  and  all  eagerly  await  the  appointed 
hour,  which  occurs  at  sunset,42 —  for  so  the  Samaritans  in- 
terpret the  phrase  "  between  the  evenings,"  Ex.  12,  6.43  A 
number  of  lambs  have  been  carefully  selected  from  those 
born  in  the  preceding  Tishri,  and  of  these  so  many  as  will 
suffice  for  the  worshippers  are  destined  for  the  sacrifice, 
generally  from  five  to  seven,  although  others  are  at  hand  in 
case  anyone  of  them  is  ritually  unfit.  Some  hours  before 
the  sacrifice  two  fires  are  started  in  the  trenches  above  de- 
scribed; in  one  of  them  a  caldron  is  heated  for  boiling  the 
water  necessary  to  fleece  the  lambs,  in  the  other  a  mass  of 
fuel  is  kindled  to  make  the  oven  for  roasting  the  lambs. 
All  these  preparations  are  in  the  hands  of  young  men  (cf. 

41  For  descriptions  of  the  Passover  by  eye-witnesses,  see  the  Bib- 
liography under  the  titles :  Curtiss,  Grove,  Macewen,  Mills,  Moulton, 
Petermann,  E.  T.  Rogers,  Stafford,  Stanley,  Thomson,  Trumbull,  War- 
ren, Wilson.  The  notice  by  the  young  American  scholar,  Moulton,  is 
based  upon  particularly  critical  observation. 

42  Variations  in  this  appointment,  however,  are  caused  by  the  inci- 
dence of  the  Sabbath.  If  the  14th  Nisan  is  a  Sabbath,  the  feast  takes 
place  the  day  before,  in  which  case  the  functions  must  be  proceeded 
with  at  earlier  hours  so  that  all  may  be  over  before  the  advent  of  the 
Sabbath ;  if  the  feast  falls  on  Sunday,  the  preparations  may  not  begin 
until  Saturday  is  past,  the  days  being  measured  of  course  from  sunset 
to  sunset. 

43  The  Samaritan  use  here  agrees  with  the  Sadduca?an  as  against  that 
of  the  Pharisees,  according  to  whom  the  sacrifice  should  be  made  be- 
tween 3  and  6  p.  m. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  39 

Ex.  24,  5),  who  sometimes  are  clad  in  blue  robes.44  Coin- 
cident with  the  starting  of  the  fire  the  service  begins,  and 
this  is  kept  up  until  the  lambs  are  put  into  the  oven;  it 
consists  in  the  reading  of  the  Passover  lections  from  Exo- 
dus, and  ancient  Passover  hymns.  A  certain  number  of 
representative  men  render  the  antiphons.  In  the  service 
all  turn  towards  the  Kibla,  the  top  of  Gerizim.  At  sunset 
the  sacrifice  takes  place,  not  on  an  altar  but  in  a  ditch;  the 
throats  of  the  lambs  are  deftly  cut  by  a  young  man,  not  by 
the  priest.45  The  ritual  inspection  then  takes  place,  the 
sinews  of  the  legs  are  withdrawn  {Gen.  32,  32),  the  offal 
removed,  and  the  lambs  fleeced  by  aid  of  the  hot  water.  The 
lambs  are  then  spitted  with  a  long  stick  run  through  their 
length,46  and  are  conveyed  to  the  heated  oven,  over  which 
they  are  laid,  the  spits  protruding  on  either  side,  while  above 
them  is  laid  a  thick  covering  of  turf  to  seal  the  oven.  The 
process  of  roasting  takes  three  or  four  hours,  during  which 
time  the  worshippers  may  rest,  the  service  being  mostly 
intermitted.  When  it  is  deemed  the  proper  time,  the  lambs 
are  withdrawn,  and  present  a  blackened  and  repulsive  as- 
pect. A  short  service  then  ensues,  the  congregation  now 
appearing  with  their  loins  girt  up  and  their  staves  in  their 
hands  {Ex.  12,  11),  and  when  the  service  is  over,  veritably 
"  eat  in  haste,"  for  they  fall  ravenously  upon  the  coal-like 
pieces  of  flesh,  devouring  it  and  taking  platters-full  to  the 
women  and  children,  who  remain  in  the  tents.  When  all 
the  flesh  is  consumed,  the  bones,  scraps,  wool,  are  carefully 

44  So  Mills  saw  them,  op.  cit.  253,  although  others  witness  to  white 
robes,  in  which  the  community  appear.  For  the  use  of  blue  in  sacred 
vestments,  see  the   Samaritan  Epistle,  N.  et  E.   123. 

45  Petermann  saw  individuals  applying  the  blood  to  their  faces,  and 
parents  streaking  it  on  their  children ;  Moulton,  the  most  recent  ob- 
server, saw  nothing  of  this,  and  learned  that  this  rite  had  been  omitted 
for  some  years  for  fear  of  the  Muslims. 

46  The  statement  of  Justin  Martyr,  a  native  of  Neapolis,  that  the 
Passover  lamb  was  trussed  on  a  cross-shaped  spit  does  not,  as  is  usually 
noted  in  this  connection,  refer  to  the  Samaritan  sacrifice,  but  explicitly 
to  the  Passover  at  Jerusalem;  C.  Tryphon.  c.  40. 


40  THE  SAMARITANS 

gathered  up,  and  thrown  into  the  still  smouldering  fire, 
until  all  is  consumed,  "  so  that  none  of  it  remain  till  the 
morrow."  After  the  meal  ablutions  take  place,  and  the 
ceremony  is  concluded  with  further  prayers  and  chants. 
According  to  the  prescriptions  of  Num.  9,  the  "  Second 
Passover  "  is  allowed. 

In  close  connection  with  the  Passover  is  the  feast  of  Un- 
leaven,  or  Massot,  which  is  reckoned  as  the  second  sacred 
feast,  being  distinguished  from  the  Passover,  although  coin- 
cident with  it,  according  to  the  language  of  the  Law.  On 
the  13th  of  the  month  a  careful  search  is  made  for  all 
leaven,  which  is  scrupulously  removed,  and  from  the  14th 
day  till  the  21st  no  leaven  may  be  eaten.  The  21st  is  the 
great  day  of  this  feast,  and  on  it  they  make  pilgrimage  to 
Gerizim,  reading  through  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  on  the 
way  and  at  the  village  Makkada,  where  they  finally  halt. 

The  ensuing  Pentecostal  period,  which  is  measured  not 
after  the  Jewish  method  from  the  second  day  of  Unleavened 
Bread,  but  literally  according  to  Lev.  23,i5f  from  the  mor- 
row of  the  Sabbath  in  that  week,47  is  an  especially  holy 
portion  of  the  year;  on  the  third  day  before  Pentecost  is 
celebrated  the  third  great  feast,  that  of  the  Stay  of  Moses 
upon  Sinai,  that  is  of  the  beginning  of  the  Lawgiver's  so- 
journ in  the  holy  mount.  On  this  day  the  whole  Law  is 
read.48 

The  fourth  feast  is  that  of  Weeks,  or  Pentecost,  which  is 
reckoned  as  above  stated.  It  is  celebrated  by  pilgrimage 
to  Gerizim,  where  the  whole  Law  is  again  read.  Its  primi- 
tive character  as  a  harvest  feast  is  particularly  observed, 
with  regard  to  Dt.  i6,9ff.     The  fifth  feast  is  that  of  Trum- 

47  This  was  also  the  method  of  the  Boethusians  and  is  still  that  of 
the  Karaite  sect. 

48  This  feast  does  not  appear  in  the  lists  given  in  the  Epistles,  e.  g., 
N.  et  E.  76,  157,  176;  in  these  lists  it  is  difficult  to  discover  how  the 
seven  feasts  that  are  claimed  are  actually  counted ;  probably  the  8th 
day  of  Weeks  is  reckoned  the  seventh  feast. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  41 

pets,  the  New  Year's  day,  falling  on  the  first  clay  of  the 
seventh  ecclesiastical  month.  But  the  Samaritans  do  not  re- 
gard this  so  much  as  a  New  Year's  festival  as  rather  the 
beginning  of  the  great  penitential  season  of  the  year.49  The 
sixth  holy  season  is  the  solemn  fast  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, the  Jewish  Kippur.50  The  day  is  most  strictly  ob- 
served; none,  man,  woman  nor  child,  is  allowed  to  eat, 
drink,  sleep,  or  converse  for  the  whole  day ;  all  adult  males 
must  spend  the  whole  day  in  the  synagogue,  except,  accord- 
ing to  Mills'  narrative,  for  a  solemn  excursion  to  the  tombs 
of  certain  of  the  prophets.  The  service  consists  in  the  read- 
ing of  the  whole  Pentateuch,  and  in  the  singing  of  special 
hymns,  which  are  by  far  the  most  spiritual  of  all  in  the 
liturgy,  dwelling  as  they  do  most  earnestly  upon  the  need  of 
repentance,  and  likening  the  fast  to  the  great  final  "  Day 
of  Recompense  and  Vengeance."  Towards  the  conclusion 
of  the  service  occurs  the  most  solemn  event  of  the  year,  the 
exhibition  of  the  ancient  roll  of  Abishua,  which  occurs  only 
on  this  occasion.  More  than  usual  ritual  solemnity  accom- 
panies the  rite;  the  priests  are  clothed  in  light-green  satin 
dresses,  and  upon  emerging  from  the  recess  with  the  roll 
are  covered  with  a  talith.  Before  the  exposed  roll  the  con- 
gregation repeatedly  prostrate  themselves,  then  press  for- 
ward to  touch,  kiss,  caress  it,  the  cynosure  of  all  eyes.51 
This  solemn  day  makes  the  month  the  holiest  of  all  to  the 
mind  of  the  Samaritans. 

The  feast  of  Booths  completes  the  circuit  of  the  seven 
seasons,  and  is  observed  in  close  accord  with  the  Pentateuch- 
al  regulations,  the  booths  being  erected  in  the  courts  of 
the  houses.     Each  day  of  the  first  seven  they  make  pilgrim- 

49  Cf.  BS  ii,  96,  line  14.  Herein  doubtless  ancient  Semitic  usage  is 
followed ;  cf.  the  first  month  of  the  Muslim  year,  Muharram. 

50  Called  Kippurim,  as  amongst  the  Jews. 

51  The  only  eye-witness  of  this  celebration  I  know  of  is  Grove, 
in  Galton's  Vacation  Tourists.  Azazel,  the  "  scapegoat,"  is  known  cor- 
rectly enough  —  only,  as  a  demon.     See  below,  p.  219. 


42  THE  SAMARITANS 

age  to  Gerizim,  and  abstain  from  all  work  throughout  the 
week;  the  eighth  day,  "the  last,  great  day  of  the  feast" 
(Jn.  7,2,7),  is  sabbatically  observed  in  the  synagogue. 
Among  the  minor  days  are  to  be  reckoned  the  New  Moon 
feasts,  which  are  observed  in  the  afternoon  of  the  day  fol- 
lowing the  appearance  of  the  young  moon.52 

We  turn  now  to  the  observation  of  the  functions  of 
domestic  life,  every  detail  of  which  is  also  consecrated  by 
religion.  In  connection  with  birth  the  laws  of  purification 
are  scrupulously  regarded.  The  male  child  is  always  cir- 
cumcised on  the  eighth  day,  no  postponement  being  allowed 
as  in  the  Jewish  rite.  The  priest  generally  performs  the 
operation,  and  at  home  ;53  the  cruel  act  of  "  tearing  "  per- 
formed by  the  Jews  is  not  observed.  The  naming  of  the 
child  takes  place  at  the  same  time.  The  redemption  of  the 
firstborn,  formerly  practised,  is  now  omitted  because  of  the 
poverty  of  the  community.54  There  is  no  initiation  into  the 
community  like  that  in  Judaism  which  makes  a  boy  Bar 
Miswa,  a  child  of  the  Law ;  the  child's  accountability  begins 
with  his  "  knowing  good  and  evil."  Marriage  takes  place 
early,  with  boys  in  the  15th  or  16th  year,  with  girls  in  the 
1 2th;  celibacy  is  abominated  in  this  declining  community. 
Divorce  takes  place  at  the  pleasure  of  the  husband,  who 
gives  a  bill  of  divorce,  according  to  Dt.  24  ;55  but  because 
of  the  paucity  of  females,  if  for  no  better  reason,  such 
separation  rarely  occurs  to-day.     Polygamy  is  allowed  only 

52  See  Mills,  op.  cit.  238.  The  same  authority  also  refers  to  a  cele- 
bration of  Purim,  which  is  held,  not  as  bv  the  Jews  on  the  13th  Adar. 
but  on  the  last  three  Sabbaths  of  the  preceding  month,  the  mission  of 
Moses  to  deliver  the  Israelites  being  the  object  of  commemoration. 
The  Samaritans  interpret  the  word  Purim  in  the  sense  "rejoicings" 
(the  root  pa'arf).  Petermann,  op.  cit.  290,  describes  the  two  tithing 
days,  the  Summot.  Also  for  the  order  of  the  seasons  and  their  serv- 
ices, see  Cowley,  JQR  vii,  128. 

53  It  was  once  performed  before  the  community ;  see  the  anecdote  of 
Bishop  Germanus,  p.  101. 

54  Mills,  op.  cit.  191. 

55  N.  et  E.  122. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS  43 

in  the  case  of  the  barrenness  of  the  wife,  when  a  second  wife 
may  be  taken,  but  a  third  is  not  allowed.  The  Samaritans 
strikingly  differ  from  the  Jews  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
law  of  the  levirate  marriage,  according  to  Dt.  25,56:.  They 
regard  as  the  "  husband's  brother  "  the  coreligionist  who 
lives  in  the  husband's  house,  and  whose  duty  it  is  to  marry 
his  widow,  if  childless;  if  he  refuses,  the  contemptuous 
ceremony  of  Chalisa  follows  theoretically,  but  is  never  now 
practised.56  The  law  of  prohibited  degrees  is  strictly  fol- 
lowed, and  the  marriage  with  a  niece  is  prohibited.57 

The  Levitical  laws  of  defilement  are  scrupulously  regard- 
ed, both  in  respect  to  all  natural  defilements,  and  in  the  puri- 
fications required  before  participation  in  the  rites  of  the 
community.  Large  ablutions  of  water  are  used,  and  in 
earlier  days  fire  was  employed  as  a  purifying  agent.58  The 
early  Samaritan  sects  developed  the  notion  of  "  baptisms  " 
to  a  great  extent,  and  have  probably  affected  the  orthodox 
community.  According  to  the  Epistle  of  1672  the  lustral 
water  made  with  ashes  of  a  red  heifer  was  still  used,  but 
this  had  been  given  up  by  the  age  of  the  Epistle  of  1810.59 

Upon  death  the  corpse  is  carefully  and  ceremoniously 
washed;  it  is  not  forbidden  to  the  Samaritans,  as  has  been 
frequently  stated,  to  handle  their  dead,  except  in  the  case 
of  the  highpriest.  Candles  are  burnt  at  the  head  and  foot 
of  the  corpse  before  burial.  Coffins  are  used  —  an  excep- 
tion in  modern  Palestinian  custom.  The  mourning  cere- 
monies last  until  the  following  Sabbath,  the  community 
going  each  day  to  the  tomb,  where  they  read  and  pray.  On 
the  Sabbath  the  community  again  visit  the  tomb,  where  they 
partake  of  a  meal,  while  further  appropriate  services  are 

56  TV.  et  E.  123;  Petermann,  op.  cit.  280.  Earlier  there  was  a  dif- 
ferent interpretation  of  "  brother's  wife  " ;  see  p.   184. 

57  N.  et  E.  179.  Marriage  with  a  niece  was  a  bar  to  the  priesthood 
in  the  early  Catholic  Church;  see  Apostolical  Canons,  No.  xix  (Fulton, 
Index  canonum,  87). 

58  See  Additional  Note  C. 

59  JV.  et  E.  178,  127. 


44  THE  SAMARITANS 

held  in  the  synagogue.  The  Samaritans  appear  to-day  to 
make  a  point  of  forgetting  their  dead,  and  have  no  subse- 
quent commemorations,  except  their  visits  to  the  tombs  of 
the  Patriarchs.  However  the  liturgy  contains  requiem 
hymns.  They  are  said  to  share  with  the  Jews  the  custom 
of  burning  combustible  articles  at  Joseph's  tomb. 

Finally  a  word  remains  to  be  said  concerning  the  ethical 
quality  of  the  Samaritan  religion,  for  the  elaborate  system 
of  cult  and  custom  which  envelopes  the  sect  might  be  con- 
sidered to  tend  to  the  deadening  of  all  true  religion.  But 
both  their  literature  and  the  reports  of  travellers  who  have 
spent  any  time  with  them  show  that  the  Samaritans  have 
developed  a  spiritual  appreciation  of  the  essentials  of  re- 
ligion, which  finds  utterance  in  phrases  frequently  equal  to 
the  best  in  Judaism  and  Christianity.  The  practical  cessa- 
tion of  sacrifice  has  led  the  Samaritans,  as  in  the  Jewish 
synagogue,  to  replace  the  primacy  of  the  rite  with  the  wor- 
ship of  the  heart;  so  we  read  of  "  the  altar  of  prayer,"  and 
"  the  altar  of  conversion,"  "  tears  of  blood  " —  i.  e.  in  place 
of  bloody  libations,  — "  drink-offerings  of  song."60  Much 
is  said  about  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  and  prayer  must 
be  made  from  "  the  heart  and  soul."  The  sense  of  sin  is 
strong,  appearing  especially  in  the  liturgy  for  Kippur,  when 
a  call  to  real  repentance  is  made ;  God  alone  can  forgive  sin 
(although  the  saints  have  certain  merit),  and  no  rites  of 
religion  replace  true  conversion  and  God's  merciful  forgive- 
ness. Many  expressions  are  akin  to  those  in  Christian 
usage,  as  the  "  being  clothed  with  faith  "  (cf.  Eph.  6,  nff) ; 
"  the  bread  of  forgiveness  " ;  "  the  clothing  of  atonement  " 
(cf.  the  clothing  with  Christ's  righteousness).61  The  Sa- 
maritans have  not  developed  the  hardness  of  Rabbinic  ex- 
egesis, and  they  have  given  large  play  to  allegorizing,  which 

60  BS  ii,  154,  line  17;  p.  202,  line  1;  p.  xlii.     Cf.  Hosea's  "calves  of 
the  lips,"  14,  2. 

61  BS  ii,  p.  xlii ;  197,  v.  24. 


THE  MODERN  SAMARITANS 


45 


with  all  its  absurdities  often  contributes  a  poetic  touch  to 
their  hymns.  At  the  same  time  their  exegesis  is  frequently 
rational  and  spiritual,  as  in  their  interpretation  of  the  front- 
lets between  the  eyes,  or  in  finding,  after  the  example  of 
Jesus,  a  proof  of  immortality  in  the  verse,  "  I  am  the  God 
of  thy  father,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob."62 

The  facts  given  in  this  Chapter  abundantly  prove  the 
thesis  that,  whatever  its  beginnings,  Samaritanism  has  be- 
come and  is  a  Jewish  sect.  The  history  of  its  origin  must 
now  be  taken  up. 

62  So  Mills  relates,  op.  cit.  219. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SAMARITAN  SECT. 

§    I.       TO  THE   FALL  OF  JERUSALEM.   586  B.   C. 

When  the  present  writer  took  up  the  study  of  the  origin 
of  the  Samaritans,  he  naturally  began  with  a  consideration 
of  the  differences  which  distinguished  the  histories  of  the 
two  sections  of  the  Hebrew  people.  Israel  and  Juda,  the 
North  and  the  South.  It  seemed  antecedently  probable  that 
the  Samaritans  must  be  the  heirs  of  the  peculiar  religious 
characteristics  of  northern  Israel ;  they  would  be  the  lineal 
successors  of  the  church  of  Elija,  Elisha  and  Hosea,  and 
of  those  Yahwe-enthusiasts,  the  family  of  Jehu.1  But  the 
results  obtained  in  this  field  of  investigation  are  entirely 
negative.  When  at  last  we  come  upon  definite  information 
concerning  the  Samaritans,  of  the  kind  that  gives  some  de- 
scription of  them,  —  and  these  authorities  belong  to  the 
Christian  era,  the  New  Testament,  Josephus,  the  Talmud  — 
the  Samaritans  appear  as  nothing  else  than  a  Jewish  sect. 
The  one  essential  difference  between  them  and  Judaism 
is  that  their  cult  centres  on  Gerizim,  not  on  Zion;  minor 
differences  there  are,  but  almost  all  of  these  can  be  shown 
to  represent  elder  stages  of  Judaism  and  often  to  corre- 
spond with  the  tenets  which  distinguished  the  conservative 
Sadducees  from  the  progressive  and  finally  triumphant 
Pharisees. 

It  is  not  necessary  then  to  ascend  into  hoary  antiquity  to 

1  This    theory   has    been    attempted,    but    unsuccessfully,   by    Lincke, 
Samaria  und  seine  Propheten. 

46 


ISRAEL  AND  JUDAH  TO  586  B.  C.  47 

ascertain  what  ancient  cults  upon  Gerizim  may  have  given 
a  peculiar  coloring  to  the  worship  still  connected  with  it  by 
the  Samaritans;  between  the  rise  of  that  sect  and  antiquity 
has  entered  the  cleft  of  Jewish  monotheism  and  iconoclasm. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  —  interesting  as  the  task  would  be  — 
to  expatiate  here  upon  the  original  differences  between  the 
North  and  the  South  in  the  matter  of  religion.  These 
differences  have  been  too  much  exaggerated ;  northern  Israel 
has  been  condemned  because  orthodox  Juda  has  written  the 
history.  But  a  comparison  need  only  be  made  between  the 
two  great  prophets  who  preached  the  fall  of  their  respective 
states,  Hosea  and  Jeremia,  in  order  to  make  it  clear  that 
while  in  both  kingdoms  there  was  a  spiritual  remnant,  in- 
carnated in  those  respective  prophets  and  their  partisans, 
religious  and  moral  degeneracy  marked  the  South  at  the  end 
of  the  Vllth  Century  B.  C.  as  luridly  as  it  stains  the  pages 
of  the  last  days  of  the  northern  kingdom  a  century  before.2 
In  the  providence  of  God  Juda  was  given  a  respite  of  a 
century  and  a  quarter  beyond  the  fall  of  Samaria  before  her 
own  ruin  came;  her  spiritual  fruit  had  greater  time  to 
ripen,  and  became  crystallized  in  the  Deuteronomic  reform, 
so  that  when  the  stroke  fell  there  was  a  spiritual  germ  with 
vitality  enough  to  withstand  uprooting  and  transportation. 
We  have  to  add  to  these  considerations  the  more  benevolent 
conditions  of  the  exile  under  Nebuchadrezzar,  and  the  au- 
spicious political  circumstances  of  Cyrus's  conquest,  in  or- 
der to  understand  the  perpetuation  of  Juda's  community 
and  its  final  restoration  to  its  native  seat.  These  factors 
of  history,  simply  fortuitous  as  they  appear  to  some,  prov- 
idential as  they  prove  themselves  to  other  minds,  help 
us  to  understand  why  of  the  two  "  Sisters,"  Israel  and 
Juda,  "  one  was  taken  and  the  other  left,"  and  why  Juda's 
church  finally  dominated  in  the  ancient  Holy  Land. 

2  See  Jeremia,  passim,  and  especially  3,  6ff,  for  Yahwe's  change  of 
heart  towards  Israel. 


48  THE  SAMARITANS 

The  period  in  which  we  must  look  for  data  concerning  the 
origin  of  the  Samaritan  sect  is  a  lengthy  one.  It  extends 
from  the  time,  about  722  B.  C,  to  which  the  description 
given  by  2  KL  17  of  religious  conditions  in  Samaria  after 
the  Assyrian  conquest  assumes  to  belong,  down  to  the  age 
of  Alexander  the  Great,  in  whose  reign  the  Jewish  his- 
torian Josephus  places  the  rise  of  the  Samaritan  sect  and 
the  building  of  its  temple  on  Gerizim.  Yet  the  data  bear- 
ing upon  our  subject  for  these  four  centuries  are  most 
scanty  and  meagre,  while  most  of  them  are  involved  in 
disputes  of  Old  Testament  criticism  which  are  kaleidoscopic 
in  their  variety  and  show  no  sign  of  speedy  settlement. 
We  will  observe  first  the  classic  passage  2  Ki.  17,  which, 
more  than  any  other  document,  has  controlled  the  tradi- 
tional theories  concerning  the  Samaritans. 

The  pertinent  data  in  this  chapter  are  as  follows.  After 
a  three  years'  siege  the  capital  of  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
the  city  of  Samaria,  fell  to  the  Assyrian  king,  who  de- 
ported Israel,  and  settled  them  in  various  specified  places, 
both  in  Assyria  proper  and  in  Media  (v.  1-6,  cf.  18,  9-11  ).3 
But  the  land  denuded  of  its  inhabitants  required  new  citi- 
zens, so  we  learn  that  "  the  king  of  Assyria  brought  men 
from  Babylon,  and  from  Kutha,  and  from  Awwa,  and  from 
Hamath  and  Sepharwaim,  and  placed  them  in  the  cities  of 
Samaria  in  place  of  the  children  of  Israel;  and  they  pos- 
sessed Samaria  and  dwelt  in  the  cities  thereof"  (v.  24). 
But  the  newcomers  "  feared  not  Yahwe,"  that  is,  did  not 
worship  him,  because  as  strangers  they  knew  not  the  cult 
of  the  native  god ;  "  therefore  Yahwe  sent  lions  among 
them,  which  killed  some  of  them."  The  settlers  thereupon 
prayed  the  king  of  Assyria's  assistance,  and  he  responded 

3  The  problem  of  these  "  Lost  Ten  Tribes  "  does  not  concern  us  here. 
A  tradition  concerning  their  maintenance  of  relations  with  the  Jews  is 
preserved  in  the  Book  of  Tobit;  Tobit  is  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  de- 
scended from  an  Israelite  taken  captive  by  Shalmaneser,  I,  2,  and  hav- 
ing social  relations  with  Israelites  in  Media. 


ISRAEL  AND  JUDAH  TO  586  B.  C.  49 

to  their  implied  desire  by  sending  back  to  Samaria  some 
of  the  deported  priests,4  who  should  teach  the  people  "  the 
custom  of  the  god  of  the  land."  So  the  priestly  deputation 
returned  to  their  native  home,  and  settled  at  Bethel,  where 
they  taught  the  foreigners  the  way  of  Yahwe  (v.  25-28). 
The  following  section,  v.  29-33,  *s  evidently  drawn  from 
another  tradition,  for  it  contains  a  different  story  concern- 
ing the  origin  of  the  priests  amongst  the  new  colonists.5 
On  the  one  hand,  each  of  the  imported  races  set  up  its  own 
cult,  and  established  its  peculiar  deities,  which  are  re- 
spectively named;  and  on  the  other  hand,  they  worshipped 
Yahwe,  overcoming  sacerdotal  deficiency  by  making  priests 
for  the  native  cult  out  of  their  own  number,0  and  these 
continued  the  rites  of  Yahwe  along  with  the  new  cults  of 
the  foreign  deities  in  "  the  houses  of  the  highplaces " 
throughout  the  land.  And  so  "  they  worshipped  Yahwe 
and  yet  served  their  own  gods."  The  picture  here  offered 
represents  the  land  of  Samaria  as  wholly  inhabited  by  for- 
eign colonists,  who  have  adopted  a  syncretistic  religion, 
compounded  of  their  ancestral  cults  and  of  that  native  deity 
Yahwe,  whose  worship  superstition  caused  them  to  accept. 
Let  us  now  turn  to  the  Assyrian  accounts  of  the  fall  of 
the  city  and  its  results.  Sargon  (722-705),  the  Assyrian 
king  who  captured  the  city,  and  not  Shalmaneser  as  the  con- 

4  The  text  fluctuates  between  the  singular  and  the  plural  as  to  the 
number  of  the  returned  priests.  With  Josephus  and  several  modern 
critics,  e.  g.,  Stade  in  SBOT  ad  loc,  I  prefer  the  plural,  supposing 
that  "  one  "  was  inserted  to  minimize  the  amount  of  sacerdotal  "  suc- 
cession." A  legend  of  the  Syriac  Church  has  it  that  its  version  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  due,  at  least  in  part,  to  this  priest  from  Assyria, 
whose  name  is  variously  given  as  Asya,  Ezra,  Uria,  etc. :  see  Bar- 
Hebraeus,  pref.  to  Horr.  myst.;  Hist,  dyn.,  ed.  Pococke,  p.  100.  For 
the  Rabbinic  traditions  concerning  the  names  of  the  priests,  see  below, 
P-  254. 

5  See  Stade,  SBOT  ad  loc.  N.  B.  the  parallelism  of  the  participial 
constructions  in  vv.  29  and  33. 

6  This  is  a  repetition  of  the  tradition  concerning  Jeroboam's  priests, 
1  Ki.  12,  31. 

4 


5o  THE  SAMARITANS 

text  of  the  Biblical  passages  leads  us  to  infer,  has  left  a 
fairly  detailed  account  :7 

L.  ii.     "  Samaria  I  besieged  and  conquered   12 

1t> 14 (with  the  help  of  Shamash?) 

who  gave  me  my  strength 15 27,290  people 

I  took  into  captivity,  50  chariots  for  my  military  use  I  re- 
moved       16 I  renewed,  made  it  higher  than 

before;  people  out  of  all  lands,  my  captives  of  war,  I 
settled  there ;  my  officer  I  made  governor  over  them,  tribute 
and  taxes  like  the  Assyrians  I  laid  upon  them." 

A  parallel  but  briefer  account  relates  :8 

L.  23.  "  Samaria  I  besieged,  and  conquered.  24.  I 
took  into  captivity  27,290  of  those  who  dwelt  there,  and 
removed  50  chariots.  The  rest  I  let  keep  their  property 
(?).  I  set  my  officer  over  them  and  laid  upon  them  the 
tribute  of  the  former  king." 

According  to  Sargon  then  no  complete  deportation  took 
place;  he  removed  only  some  27,000  natives,  mostly  with- 
out doubt  from  the  capital,  whereas  we  learn  from  a  passage 
of  contemporary  content,  2  Ki.  15,19*,  that  the  land  con- 
tained some  60,000  well-to-do  landed  proprietors.9  It  may 
be  believed  that  amongst  the  exiles  were  found  all  the 
priests  that  the  conquerors  could  capture,  for  these  were  the 
mainstay  of  the  fanatical  opposition  of  the  petty  Syrian 
states  against  the  Assyrian  empire.10  But  the  bulk  of  the 
Israelites  still  remained  behind,  in  the  condition  propheti- 
cally described  by  the  prophet  Hosea,  "  without  king,  and 
without  prince,  and  without  altar,  and  without  sacrifice,  and 
without  pillar,  and  without  ephod  or  teraphim "  (3,4). 
Moreover  it  is  most  improbable  that  the  five  peoples  men- 
tioned in  2  Ki.   17  as  imported  into  the  land  at  this  time 

i  Annals,   11-17.     (I   refer    for  these   passages   to    Schrader,   Keilin- 
schriftliche  Bibliothck,  ii.) 

8  The  so-called  Prunkinschrift,  23-24. 

9  See  Buhl,  Die  sozialen  Verhaltmsse  Israels,  52. 

10  Cf.  KAT  95- 


ISRAEL  AND  JUDAH  TO  586  B.  C.  51 

were  actually  introduced  then.  Apart  from  the  general 
phrase  "  people  of  all  the  lands  "  Sargon  names  only  one 
people  as  settled  at  this  time  in  Hatti-land,  i.  e.  Syria, 
namely  the  Tumuna,  possibly  an  eastern  Aramaean  tribe.11 

In  truth,  the  data  of  2  Ki.  17  have  focussed  events  which 
were  spread  over  a  good  part  of  a  century,  and  actually 
summarize  the  historic  fact  that  several  importations  and 
deportations  of  citizens  occurred  under  Assyrian  rule. 
These  events  we  must  briefly  review.  In  721  broke  out 
the  serious  revolt  of  Ilubidi  of  Hamath,  in  which,  strange 
as  it  appears,  Samaria  took  part.12  We  learn  at  the  same 
time  of  an  importation  of  people  from  Urartu  into  Hatti- 
land,  and  may  suppose  that  Samaria  received  some  share 
of  punishment. 

With  the  year  715  Sargon  began  his  campaigns  against 
the  Medes.  For  the  following  year,  714,13  the  conqueror  re- 
cords the  colonization  in  Samaria  of  the  tribes  Tamud, 
Ibadidi,  Marsimani,  Haiapa,  the  distant  Arbai  (Arabians?), 
whom  he  describes  as  people  of  the  desert,  hitherto  inde- 
pendent and  even  unknown.  Now  the  settlement  in  Sa- 
maria of  these  wild  tribes  may  have  been  in  compensation 
for  the  Median  deportation  of  Israelites  claimed  by  2  Ki. 
17,  which  deportation  is  to  be  included  among  the  peo- 
ple of  the  lands  transported  into  Media  as  a  result  of 
Sargon's  conquests  in  that  region.14 

After  a  lapse  of  several  decades  we  read,  in  a  much  later 
Biblical  passage,  Ezra,  4,2,  of  the  colonization  in  Samaria 
effected  by  Esarhaddon.  The  gloss  in  Is.  7,8 :  "  and  with- 
in 65  years  shall  Ephraim  be  broken  in  pieces  so  that  it  shall 

11  Annals,  20-23;  see  Winckler's  revised  translation,  Alttestamenl- 
liche  Untersuchungen,  105. 

12  Annals,  23 ff. 

13  Annals,  94ff. 

14  Annals,  67R;  Prunkinschrift,  5Qff.  This  combination  of  data  has 
been  suggested  by  Winckler. 


52  THE  SAMARITANS 

not  be  a  people,"  may  have  reference  to  some  chastisement 
of  the  land  undertaken  by  the  monarch  named.15 

Finally  Ezra,  4,o,f,  gives  a  list  of  peoples  settled  in  Sa- 
maria by  Asenappar,  who  is  now  unanimously  identified 
with  Asshurbanapal.10  The  list  of  peoples  as  given  by  the 
Massoretic  text  of  this  passage  is  a  mass  of  barbarous 
names,  but  is  now  generally  interpreted  as  follows  :17  "  The 
Persian  judges,  the  Persian  secretaries  (?),  the  people  of 
Erech,  the  Babylonians,  the  Shushanites,  that  is,  the  Elam- 
ites,"  In  accordance  therefore  with  this  passage,  which 
purports  to  be  a  document  of  the  age  of  Artaxerxes  I.,  the 
colonists  settled  in  Samaria  included  both  Persian  officials, 
and  Mesopotamians  from  Babylon  and  Erech,  along  with 
Elamites  from  the  old  Elamitic  capital  Susa.  With  this 
reference  to  colonies  settled  in  Samaria  by  Asshurbanapal 
from  Babylon  and  Erech,  we  have  doubtless  to  associate 
the  reference  to  the  colonies  from  Babylon  and  Kutha  in 
2  Ki.  17,  for  which  deportation  there  would  be  no  place 
in  Sargon's  history,  although  it  could  well  have  been  part 
of  Asshurbanapal's  chastisement  of  Babylonia  for  its  partic- 
ipation in  the  civil  war  raised  by  Shamash-shum-ukin.18 

15  I  see  no  reason  to  change  the  name,  with  Josephus,  AJ  xi,  4,  3, 
to  Shalmaneser,  or  with  Winckler  {op.  cit.  98ft")  to  Asshurbanapal, 
to  make  it  agree  with  Ezra,  4,  10.  The  two  passages  are  critically 
distinct.     If  a  change  has  to  be  made,  Sargon  is  the  easiest  makeshift. 

16  The  identification  was  first  proposed  by  Bosanquet  in  G.  Smith, 
History  of  Asshurbanipal,  364.  For  the  proper  vocalization  of  the 
first  syllable,  see  the  texts  of  Baer  and  Ginsburg;  for  the  Persian 
origin  of  the  last  consonant,  see  Meyer,  Entstehung  des  Judenthums, 
29. 

17  I  follow  Meyer,  op.  at.  35,  and  on  the  "  Tarpelites,"  Marquart, 
Fundamente  israelitischer  u.  judischer  Geschichte,  64,  who  proposes 
a  corruption  of  the  Assyrian  dupsharru,  tablet-writer. 

18  I  can  only  briefly  refer  to  Winckler's  notable  essay,  op.  cit.  98, 
with  its  drastic  criticism  of  the  narrative  of  colonization  in  2  Ki,  17, 
a  piece  of  criticism  which  has  been  largely  adopted.  He  holds  that 
v.  24  originally  read :  Babylon,  Kutha,  Sippar,  but  that  the  latter  word 
was  confused  with  the  Sepharwaim,  1.  c,  the  Syrian  Sibrain,  of  2  Ki. 
18,  34,  which  confusion  dragged  into  our  passage  the  two  other  cities 
mentioned  in  the  latter  passage,  Hamath  and  Iwwa.  Against  this 
plausible  critical  theory  is  to  be  placed  the  fact  that  four  out  of  the  five 


ISRAEL  AND  JUDAH  TO  586  B.  C.  53 

There  was  thus  more  than  one  deportation  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Samaria,  along  with  several  colonizations  in  the 
land  to  replace  the  citizens  who  had  been  lost  by  captivity 
and  the  calamities  of  war.  Still,  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  these  movements  absolutely  changed  the  character  of 
the  citizens  of  Samaria.19  The  conditions  there  must  have 
been  parallel  to  those  in  Juda  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 
From  what  we  read  on  the  surface  of  the  Biblical  records, 
we  are  led  to  suppose  that  all  the  Jews  were  transported 
to  Babylon,  the  remainder  perishing,  and  that  those  of 
the  Return  were  the  sole  progenitors  of  the  subsequent 
Jewish  church.  But  it  is  now  recognized  that  the  poorer 
classes  of  the  country  and  villages  largely  remained  behind, 
some  of  them  amalgamating  with  and  being  lost  in  the 
peoples  who  entered  the  depopulated  territory,  others  being 
finally  saved  to  Judaism  through  the  religious  intensity  of 
the  Gola,  the  returned  exiles.20  In  like  manner  it  is  to  be 
presumed  that  a  very  considerable  remnant  of  Israel  re- 
mained in  Samaria.  Yet  possessing  neither  spiritual  nor 
secular  heads,  they  must  have  been  both  politically  and 
religiously  a  weak  community.21  Without  doubt  many  of 
them  —  how  large  a  proportion  there  is  no  means  of  judg- 

deities  named  in  2  Ki.  17  for  the  Syrian  cities  can  be  connected  with 
the  Syrian  pantheon.  Adrammelek,  a  corruption  for  Adad-melek,  and 
Anammelek,  for  Anu-melek,  are  syncretisms  of  the  Assyrian  deities 
Adad  and  Anu  (who  were  son  and  father  in  the  Assyrian  pantheon) 
with  the  widespread  Syrian  deity  Melek.  Tartak  is  Atargatis.  (For 
the  origin  of  the  latter  word,  see  Baethgen,  Beitrage,  68.)  Ashima 
has  now  been  proved  to  be  a  Syrian  and  Hamathite  goddess ;  see  Ad- 
ditional Note  D.  This  verisimilitude  in  the  names  of  the  Syrian  deities 
increases  the  probability  of  the  historical  worth  of  the  statement  con- 
cerning those  Syrian  cities  as  contributing  colonies  to  Samaria. 

19  So  Hengstenberg,  Authentic  des  Daniels,  177. 

20  Indeed  some  scholars  now  go  to  the  extreme  of  arguing  that  there 
was  no  Return  under  Cyrus,  that  the  Jews  left  behind  in  Juda  were  the 
continuators  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth. 

21  Jeremia  ignores  the  existence  of  this  remnant  in  Samaria,  and 
regards  all  Ephraim  as  in  captivity,  c.  3.  But  in  like  fashion  he  looks 
upon  the  remnant  in  Juda  as  utterly  worthless,  "  bad  figs,"  not  to  be 
accounted  for,  c.  24.  For  other  references  in  Jer.  to  the  restoration  of 
Northern  Israel,  see  c.  31 ;  33,  7. 


54  THE  SAMARITANS 

ing  —  amalgamated  with  the  new  settlers,  and  syncretized 
with  them  in  religion,  thus  giving  a  basis  to  2  Ki.  17  and 
to  the  later  Jewish  tradition  that  all  the  Samaritans  were 
idolaters.  Yet  we  must  believe  that  some  few  thousands 
of  the  succession  of  Elija  and  Hosea,  "  that  had  not  bowed 
the  knee  to  Baal,"  must  have  remained  faithful.  However 
there  is  nothing  definite  to  show  for  any  spiritual  power  in 
this  remnant.  Certainly  we  may  not  hold  that  there  arose 
in  the  North  a  spiritual  and  monotheistic  institution  like  the 
Jewish  Church,  which  pursued  its  parallel  but  independent 
course,  and  which  finally  resulted  in  the  spiritual  religion  of 
Samaritanism.  Nor  can  we  argue  that  original  Samaritan- 
ism  was  a  syncretism  of  heathenism  and  Yahwism,  out 
of  which  the  latter  element  finally  emerged  triumphant, 
establishing  a  pure  monotheism  for  the  northern  sect.  This 
would  assume  a  greater  spiritual  marvel  in  Samaritanism 
than  in  the  development  of  the  Jewish  religion,  and  none 
who  knows  much  about  the  Samaritans  would  assign  to 
them  any  extraordinary  religious  genius.  But  the  key  to 
the  problem  of  the  continuance  in  the  North  of  a  remnant 
of  Israel  true  to  Yahwism  and  able  to  resist  the  tempta- 
tions offered  by  aliens,  must  be  found  in  the  support  of- 
fered to  those  weak  brethren  by  the  more  persistent  com- 
munity of  Juda. 

This  hypothesis,  likely  in  itself,  is  borne  out  by  some 
facts.  Hosea,  the  last  northern  prophet,  condemned  the 
northern  political  constitution  (8,4),  even  if  his  Messianic 
references  lie  under  critical  suspicion.22  The  fall  of  the 
state  must  have  turned  the  minds  of  sincere  Yahwe-wor- 
shippers  in  the  North  to  the  Davidic  commonwealth  of  the 
South.  On  the  other  hand  Juda  would  have  prospected 
the  possibility  of  the  ultimate  re-incorporation  of  Joseph  in 

22  See  Harper,  Amos  and  Hosea,  p.  elix.  But  the  prophet  who  con- 
demned the  house  of  Jehu  (1,  4),  could  have  been  bold  enough  to 
cherish  the  hope  of  re-union  with  Juda. 


ISRAEL  AND  JUDAH  TO  586  B.  C.  55 

its  kingdom.  A  tradition  to  this  effect  is  contained  in  2  Ch. 
30,  in  the  narrative  of  Hezekia's  great  Passover.23  King 
Hezekia  invites  all  Israel  to  take  part  in  the  Passover  which 
he  intends  to  celebrate  in  connection  with  his  religious  re- 
forms. He  sends  his  invitation  through  Ephraim  and 
Manasse  and  into  Lower  Galilee.  The  messengers  are  said 
to  have  met  with  ridicule  in  Mount  Ephraim,  yet  one  state- 
ment declares  that  "  certain  men  of  Asher  and  Manasse  and 
Zebulun  "  responded  (v.  11),  another  that  "  many  of  Eph- 
raim and  Manasse,  Issachar  and  Zebulun,"  participated  (v. 
18).  The  Passover  was  also  postponed  to  the  second  month 
(v.  2),  probably  for  the  convenience  of  the  northerners.24 
This  religious  interest  of  Hezekia  in  the  northern  Israelites 
was  also  part  of  his  political  policy,  for  we  know  from  Sen- 
nacherib 25  that  he  attempted  the  unsuccessful  role  of  con- 
queror and  dictator  in  South  Syria.  Further,  if  the  Chron- 
icler's report  about  Manasse's  imprisonment  in  Babylon, 
2  Ch.  33,11,  be  accepted  as  history,  we  may  suppose  that  he 
took  advantage  of  the  revolt  of  Shamash-shum-ukin,  652- 
648,  to  regain  the  old  northern  Israelite  land.  Probably 
the  importation  of  Babylonian  colonists  into  Samaria  at 
this  time26  was  accompanied  with  the  exile  of  rebellious 
citizens  of  the  land. 

The  next  information  we  possess  concerning  Samaria 
comes  from  the  period  of  the  melee  of  the  nations,  when 
the  Assyrian  empire  was  fast  crumbling  to  pieces.  Josia, 
the  martyr-king  of  Juda,  played  the  same  part  as  did  such 
greater  men  as  Nabopolassar  and  Necho;  he  attempted,  if 
not  foreign  conquest,  at  least  the  recovery  of  Israel's  an- 
cient territory  to  his  crown.     It  is  in  the  light  of  this  claim 

23  The  writer  does  not  accept  the  position  of  the  dominating  body 
of  critics  who  find  in  the  Chronicler's  statements  only  reflections  of 
contemporary  history;  he  is  inclined  to  let  this  tradition  speak  for 
itself. 

24  The  season  in  the  North  is  a  little  later ;  cf.  1  Ki.  12,  33. 

25  Prism,  ii,  6gft. 

26  See  above,  p.  52. 


56  THE  SAMARITANS 

and  probably  even  of  possession  of  the  Ephraimitish  high- 
lands in  part,  that  we  may  explain  Josia's  foolhardy  at- 
tempt to  stem  Necho's  march  through  the  historic  land  of 
Israel  as  he  pressed  on  his  way  toward  Nineve,  falling 
himself  in  battle  at  Megiddo,  in  the  Valley  of  Esdraelon.27 
This  royal  reformer,  according  to  2  Ki.  23,  extended  his 
reform  into  Samaria.  Bethel  is  particularly  named  as  the 
scene  of  his  most  violent  iconoclasm  (v.  I5ff),  and  all  the 
northern  sanctuaries  are  said  to  have  been  destroyed; 
Bethel,  it  may  be  recalled,  was  the  seat  of  the  syncretistic 
cult  established  by  the  colonists  (2  Ki.  17,28).  The  vio- 
lence exercised  against  the  highplaces  of  the  North  w7as  a 
counterpart  of  the  destruction  of  the  Judsean  highplaces; 
we  may  not  argue  from  the  terms  of  the  narrative  that  there 
was  no  genuine  old-fashioned  Yahwism  left  in  Samaria. 
Juda's  dominance  in  Samaria  lasted  for  less  than  two  dec- 
ades, but  we  are  justified  in  assuming  for  this  period  some 
rapprochement  between  the  faithful  of  Joseph  and  of  Juda, 
which  augured  greater  possibilities  in  the  future. 

The  hypothesis  that  a  considerable  number  of  northern 
Israelites  adapted  themselves  to  the  religious  hegemony  of 
Jerusalem  is  substantiated  by  an  anecdote  belonging  to  the 
time  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  586.  From  Jer.  4i,4ff  we 
learn  that  after  Ishmael's  assassination  of  the  Babylonian 
governor  of  the  Jewish  remnant,  the  Jew  Gedalia,  "  there 
came  men  from  Shechem,  from  Shilo,28  and  from  Samaria, 
eighty  in  number,  with  their  beards  shaven,  and  their 
clothes  rent,  and  having  cut  themselves,  with  meal-offerings 
and  frankincense  in  their  hands,  to  bring  them  to  the 
house  of  Yahwe."     This  must  refer  to  the  ruined  temple 

27  Winckler,  Forschungen,  ii,  289,  KAT  105,  follows  Herodotus,  ii, 
159,  who  makes  Magdolos  the  scene  of  the  battle;  this  place  Winckler 
identifies  with  the  later  Stratonis  Purgos,  which  name  he  considers  to 
represent  a  Semitic  Migdal  Ashtoreth. 

28  Graf  prefers  the  Salem  of  Gr.  B ;  but  see  Giesebrecht,  ad  he. 


ISRAEL  AND  JUDAH  TO  586  B.  C.  $7 

at  Jerusalem,29  while  the  mourning  of  the  party  seems  to 
relate  to  the  desolation  of  the  Holy  City.  This  reference 
to  a  considerable  body  of  northern  Israelites  expressing  a 
sympathetic  interest  in  the  fate  of  Jerusalem  at  such  troub- 
lous times,  is  only  incidentally  recorded,  but  may  have  rep- 
resented the  sentiment  of  many  in  Samaria.30 

§    2.       FROM   THE   FALL  OF  JERUSALEM   TO  THE  BEGINNING 
OF  THE  GREEK  AGE. 

In  the  preceding  pages  evidence  has  been  offered  for  the 
hypothesis  that  after  the  fall  of  the  northern  state  those  of 
its  citizens  who  remained  faithful  to  its  ancestral  tradi- 
tions turned  for  help  to  Juda,  whose  holy  city  and  dynasty 
Yahwe  had  wonderfully  preserved  in  the  Assyrian  wars, 
thereby  setting  his  seal  of  approval  upon  the  southern  insti- 
tutions. On  the  other  hand  both  political  and  religious 
ambition  incited  the  Judaite  state  to  reassert  its  claims  over 
the  northern  territory  which  was  once  part  of  its  dominion. 

We  now  come  to  the  most  difficult  field  of  the  whole  of 
our  historical  quest,  the  age  in  which  we  must  look  for  the 
definite  separation  of  the  Samaritan  community.  This  is 
the  "  Dark  Age  "  of  Jewish  history,  covering  the  Exile,  the 
Return,  with  its  several  stages,  and  the  remaining  obscure 
period  until  the  fall  of  the  Persian  empire.  There  have 
survived  many  prophetic  books  and  fragments  belonging  to 
this  age;  its  history  is  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Ezra- 
Nehemia.  But  nowhere,  in  the  eyes  of  Biblical  criticism, 
does  so  much  uncertainty  lie  concerning  the  worth  and 
meaning  of  the  historical  data  as  with  regard  to  this  latter 

29  Sacrifices  were  offered  after  the  Return  in  the  ruined  temple,  Hag. 
1,  4;  2,  14.     The  Mishna  allows  the  possibility,  Eduyot,  viii,  6. 

30  Some  scholars,  Giesebrecht,  ad  loc,  and  Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious 
Life,  26,  take  this  house  of  Yahwe  to  be  the  ancient  sanctuary  at  Mizpa. 
But  apart  from  the  difficulty  of  allowing  a  Jewish  writer  so  to  speak 
of  a  "  highplace,"  it  is  most  unlikely  that  after  Josia's  iconoclasm  such 
a  highplace  should  still  have  existed  upon  Judsean  soil. 


58  THE  SAMARITANS 

book;  and  nowhere  is  there  such  confusion  and  conflict  of 
critical  theories  attempting  to  reconstruct  the  actual  history, 
as  amongst  the  studies  of  this  period.  It  would  be  im- 
possible here  even  to  describe  all  the  different  reconstruc- 
tions that  have  been  attempted,  much  less  to  criticize  them. 
However,  fortunately  many  of  the  Jewish  problems  can  be 
left  to  one  side,  while  only  certain  leading  facts  need  be 
set  forth,  concerning  which  there  exists  the  minimum  of 
critical  dispute. 

In  the  first  place,  while  it  is  popularly  assumed  that  the 
adversaries  of  the  Jews  in  their  pious  attempts  to  restore 
Jerusalem  were  the  Samaritan  sectaries,  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  this  supposition  rests  upon  a  very  few  statements,  all 
of  a  doubtful  nature.  In  general  the  adversaries  of  the 
Jews  appear  to  be  the  political  chiefs  of  the  Persian  province 
of  Abar-Nahara,  i.  e.  Syria,  as  in  Ezra,  5-6,  or  more  par- 
ticularly the  Persian  officials  and  Babylonian  colonists  in 
Samaria,  as  in  4,7ff,  and  as  in  the  case  of  Sanballat,  of 
Bethhoron  on  the  Samaritan  border,31  who  had  behind  him 
the  support  of  what  is  generally  translated  "  the  army  of 
Samaria,"  a  phrase  which  may  mean  "  the  aristocrats  of 
Samaria."  32  How  far  the  same  Sanballat  made  friends 
with  those  of  the  Jewish  type  of  religion  in  Samaria  who 
dissented  from  the  Jerusalem  Church,  will  be  considered 
later.  But  he  appears  as  an  entirely  secular  and  worldly- 
minded  noble.  Two  other  passages  have  been  especially 
referred  to  the  Samaritan  heretics,  Ezra,  3,3,  and  4,  iff. 
The  former  passage  reads :  "  They  set  the  altar  upon  its 
base,  for  fear  was  upon  them  because  of  the  peoples  of  the 
lands."  The  Hebrew  actually  makes  still  worse  sense,  and 
the  critics  have  arrived  at  no  approved  emendation.33     In 

31 1  see  absolutely  no  reason  with  Winckler  to  explain  "  the  Horon- 
ite"  from  the  Moabite  Horonaim,  or  with  Kamphausen,  from  Harran. 

32  I  owe  this  suggestion  to  my  friend  Prof.  W.  Max  Miiller. 

33  See  Guthe-Batten,  SBOT  ad  loc;   Bertholet,  Esra  u.   Nehemiah, 
ad  loc;  Torrey,  Composition  and  Historical  Value  of  Ezra-Nehemiah, 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD         59 

any  case  the  peoples  of  the  lands  could  refer  to  many  others 
than  the  Samaritan  sect.  The  other  passage,  4, iff,  relates 
how  "  the  adversaries  of  Benjamin  and  Juda  "  proffered 
their  help  to  Zerubbabel  and  his  fellows  in  the  re-building 
of  the  temple,  saying,  "  Let  us  build  with  you ;  for  we  seek 
your  God  as  you  do,  and  sacrifice  unto  him  since  the  days 
of  Esarhaddon  king  of  Assyria,  who  brought  us  hither." 
Their  offer  is  proudly  scorned  by  the  Jews.  But  the  pas- 
sage has  been  subjected  to  unsparing  criticism  since 
Schrader's  essay  upon  it,34  and  it  is  unreasonable  to  con- 
struct much  history  upon  so  doubtful  a  passage. 

The  explanation  of  the  opposition  to  the  Jewish  restora- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Persian  officials,  from  the  satrap  of 
the  province  down  to  the  local  bureaucracy  of  Samaria,  is 
to  be  explained  simply  as  on  the  score  of  political  envy 
against  the  privileges  received  or  assumed  by  the  Jews. 
We  know  little  about  the  constitution  of  the  province  of 
Abar-Nahara,35  but  we  may  suppose  that  with  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  the  land  of  Juda  came  more  or  less  under  the 
control  of  the  officials  in  Samaria,  whose  dominion  fluctu- 
ated according  to  the  greater  or  less  independence  that  the 
restored  Jewish  community  was  able  to  gain  from  the  Great 
King.  The  hostility  to  the  new  Juda  was,  in  a  word,  of  a 
political,  not  a  religious  character. 

We  have  next  to  consider  the  changed  social  conditions  of 
Palestine.  The  new  complexion  of  the  population  of  Sa- 
maria, due  to  the  Assyrian  captivities  and  colonizations, 
has  already  been  noticed.     A  like  process  went  on  in  Juda 

Giessen,  1896,  p.  13,  who  discusses  the  passage  at  some  length.  Gratz, 
quoted  by  Torrey,  actually  reads,  "  All  the  peoples  of  the  lands  were 
coming  to  them  and  helped  them," — the  very  reverse  of  the  usual 
interpretation ! 

34  Dauer  dcs  ziveiten  Tempelbaues,  Theol.  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1867, 
p.  460.  Kuenen  took  a  somewhat  milder  view,  Hist.-Krit.  Onderz.2 
i,  505,  and  Bertholet  defends  the  passage,  ad  loc. 

35  See  Meyer,  Geschichte  des  Altertums,  III,  i,  136;  Holscher,  Pal- 
astina,  1. 


60  THE  SAMARITANS 

from  the  day  of  Jehoiakim's  revolt  against  Nebuchadrezzar. 
There  was  no  importation  of  new  settlers  from  distant 
parts,  as  in  Samaria ;  this  was  unnecessary,  for  the  dis- 
tricts left  vacant  by  the  Jews  in  the  wars  with  Babylon 
and  finally  with  the  captivity  of  a  great  part  of  their  num- 
ber, were  rapidly  filled  up  by  the  Edomites  and  Arabians 
pressing  in  from  the  south,  while  it  is  probable  that  Trans- 
Jordanic  tribes  like  the  Ammonites  crossed  the  fords  of 
Jordan  and  settled  on  Israelitish  soil.  These  newcomers 
were  designated  as  "  the  peoples  of  the  lands,"  as  we  find  in 
Ecra-N ehemia.  The  intruders  took  the  lion's  share  of  an- 
cient Juda,  so  that  the  district  which  the  Jews  occupied  in 
Nehemia's  time  consisted  of  not  much  more  than  Juda  and 
its  suburbs,  lying  between  Jericho  and  Mizpa  on  the  north. 
and  Beth-Sur  on  the  south.36  In  this  district  to  which  the 
Gola,  or  returning  exiles,  came  back,  remained  those  of  the 
Jews  who  had  not  the  good  fortune  of  enjoying  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity.  Thus  before  the  return  of  the  exiles, 
Juda  was  in  like  social  condition  to  Samaria ;  it  was  domi- 
nated by  alien  peoples,  but  also  contained  a  considerable 
element  of  the  old  Israelite  blood. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  irruption  of  the  peoples  of 
the  lands  pushed  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  Judaean  ele- 
ment to  the  north,  toward  Samaria.  So  we  find  that  the 
seat  of  Gedalia,  the  governor  of  the  Jewish  remnant  after 
the  fall  of  the  capital,  was  at  Mizpa  to  the  north  of  Jerusa- 
lem, Jer.  41,1.  Now  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  their  com- 
mon misfortunes  must  have  brought  together  the  unfor- 
tunate remnants  of  Joseph  and  Juda ;  distress  made  friends 
of  those  who  had  been  so  long  sundered  by  sectional  jeal- 
ousies. It  is  to  be  held  then  that  the  gloomy  period  of 
the  Exile,  and  also  of  the  following  century,  until  Jewish 
rigorism  expelled  all  doubtful  elements,  tended  toward  the 

36  See  Meyer,  Entstehung  des  Judenthums,  105,  and  map  at  end  of 
volume. 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD         6l 

amalgamation  of  the  Israelites  both  in  Mount  Juda  and 
Mount  Ephraim  who  in  any  way  maintained  their  ancient 
religious  traditions  and  political  hopes.  Both  Judaism  and 
Samaritanism  go  back  to  a  common  foundation  in  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  age  of  the  Exile  in  the  Vlth  Century.37 

There  existed  then  upon  Palestinian  soil  in  the  century 
of  the  Exile  the  two  distinct  factors  of  the  imported  or 
immigrant  Gentile  races  and  the  remnants  of  the  Hebrew 
race  scattered  throughout  the  highlands  of  Juda  and  Eph- 
raim. A  third  factor  has  now  to  be  considered,  namely 
the  reaction  upon  conditions  at  home  exerted  by  the  Jewish 
exiles  in  Babylonia.  It  is  to  the  efforts  of  the  exiled  com- 
munity that  the  resuscitation  of  Palestinian  Israel  is  due. 
According  to  Esra-Nehemia  there  were  two  distinct  epochs 
when  this  influence  was  exerted.38 

The  first  of  these  periods  is  that  which  followed  Cyrus's 
edict  of  emancipation  of  the  Jews,  issued  soon  after  his 
capture  of  Babylon  in  539.  According  to  Ezra,  c.  1-3,  a 
large  number  of  Jews  took  immediate  advantage  of  the 
king's  edict  and  returned  to  Jerusalem,  under  the  leadership 
of  Sheshbazzar,  probably  a  Davidic  scion.39  Little  was 
accomplished  by  this  advance-guard.  But  the  climax  of  the 
patriotic  agitation  of  this  period  did  not  come  until  the 
reign  of  Darius,  in  520.     The  political  leader  of  this  move- 

37  Observe  that  Jeremia's  bright  hopes  for  the  future  equally  in- 
cluded the  land  of  Ephraim,  c.  31.  For  the  authenticity  of  this  passage, 
see  Duhm,  ad  loc. 

38 1  follow  the  broad  outlines  of  the  Biblical  narrative.  Despite 
Kosters'  argument  {Die  Herstellung  Israels,  tr.  from  the  Dutch) 
against  any  return  of  the  Gola  in  the  Vlth  Century,  I  believe  that  this 
is  vouched  for  by  the  presence  of  Davidic  princes,  Shesh-bazzar  and 
Zerubbabel,  in  Jerusalem.  If  Kosters'  theory  is  accepted,  it  only  en- 
hances our  estimate  of  the  vitality  and  spiritual  capacity  of  the  rem- 
nant in  Juda.  As  for  the  Babylonian  influence  in  the  middle  of  the 
Vth  Century,  Nehemia  is  a  sure  historical  figure,  while  the  question 
of  the  actual  relations  of  Ezra  to  the  governor  does  not  materially 
affect  our  present  study. 

3'J  Following  the  identification  by  Howorth,  Meyer,  and  others,  with 
Shenazzar,  1  Ch.  3,  18. 


62  THE  SAMARITANS 

ment  was  Zerubbabel,  the  Davidide,  and  the  stimulus  to  the 
intense  agitation  which  arose  in  Jerusalem  was  due  to  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zecharia.40  So  far  as  we  can  judge, 
the  agitation  was  Messianic,  nationalistic;  it  appears  that 
Zerubbabel  was  the  hope  of  the  Jews,  patriots  or  fanatics, 
whichever  we  call  them.  He  is  the  Messianic  "  Branch  " 
(Zech.  3,8)  ;  he  and  the  high-priest  Joshua  are  "  the  two 
Anointed  Ones,"  i.e.  Messiahs  (4,  14)  ;  if  we  follow  Well- 
hausen's  brilliant  emendations  in  6,9ff,  the  crown  was  in- 
tended for  Zerubbabel's  head.  The  agitation  produced  the 
result  desired  by  Haggai :  the  temple  was  built.  How  much 
farther  the  frenzy  went  we  do  not  know ;  Sellin  has  argued 
for  an  assumption  of  Messianic  claims  on  Zerubbabel's  part 
which  was  violently  suppressed  by  the  power  of  the  Persian 
empire.41  At  all  events  the  furore  did  not  abide  for  long; 
within  five  years,  516-5,  the  dark  veil  again  settles  down 
upon  Juda,  and  it  is  not  lifted  until  the  age  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemia. 

This  first  attempt  at  a  restoration  may  be  definitely  de- 
scribed as  political;  and  it  possessed  the  liberalism  which 
inspires  politicians  but  is  ignored  by  ecclesiastics.  Conse- 
quently its  aim  would  have  been  to  include  the  diverse  ele- 
ments of  Palestine,  not  to  exclude  any,  least  of  all  members 
of  Israel.  It  appears  that  some  of  the  non-Israelite  races  to 
the  south  which  had  pressed  into  Juda  after  the  fall  of  Je- 
rusalem, such  as  the  Calibbites  and  Jerahmeelites,  were 
assimilated  in  this  period  to  the  Jewish  community.42  We 
have  to  assume  then  that  the  anticipations  awakened  by 
Zerubbabel   welded    still    more   closely   the   separated   ele- 

40 Hag.;  Zech.  1-8;  Ezra,  5-6. 

41  Sellin,  Serubbabel,  1898;  Studien  zur  Entstehungsgeschichte  der 
judischen  Cemeinde,  1901. 

42  Meyer,  op.  cit.  114.  Bertholet,  in  his  valuable  work,  Die  Stellung 
der  Israeliten  und  der  Juden  zu  den  Fremden,  123,  holds  that  those 
who  returned  in  538  held  aloof  from  the  local  elements,  as  is  shown 
by  the  care  concerning  the  family  registers,  Ezra,  2,  but  that  a  far  freer 
disposition  toward  the  homeborn  came  in  with  the  agitation  of  520. 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD        63 

ments  of  Israel,  and  that  the  Judsean,  Samaritan,  and 
Babylonian  Israelites  forgot  old  differences  in  the  new 
enthusiasm.  This  then  was  another  of  those  periods  of  uni- 
fication which  bound  together  Juda  and  Samaria. 

But  our  sources  fail  us,  from  515,  for  the  results  of  this 
movement.  We  must  pass  on  to  the  next  chapter  in  the 
history  as  described  by  Esra-Nehemia,  which  now  intro- 
duces to  us  the  figures  of  the  two  men  whose  names  are 
given  to  that  book.  The  first  agitation  had  failed;  the 
Jews  at  home  were  in  great  distress,  the  walls  of  Jerusalem 
were  in  ruins  (Neh.  1,3).  The  secular  ideas  of  Messianism 
had  proved  a  failure,  the  Jews  of  Palestine  had  shown 
themselves  incapable  of  establishing  the  desired  restoration. 
The  ecclesiastics  and  theologians  of  Babylonia  next  took 
up  the  forlorn  cause;  they  utterly  eschewed  politics,  ex- 
cept to  gain  the  Persian  king's  favor.  Their  aim  was  to 
institute  a  religious  community  at  Jerusalem  with  suffi- 
cient circuit  of  territory  to  establish  "  a  state  of  the  Church," 
over  which  the  ecclesiastical  administration  could  exercise 
the  civil  control  necessary  for  its  jurisdiction,  for  religion 
could  not  be  conceived  of  except  as  a  civil  institution.  The 
guiding-strings  of  the  new  administration  were  to  be  in 
the  hands  of  the  Gola  in  Babylonia,  for  this  body  alone  pos- 
sessed, in  its  own  conceit  at  least,  and  probably  actually, 
the  spiritual  capacity  for  the  fresh  undertaking;  moreover 
it  controlled  the  financial  means  and  the  political  influence 
which  were  prerequisite  conditions  of  success.43  As  a 
corollary,  the  remnant  in  Juda  would  have  to  submit  to  all 
the  conditions  laid  down  by  the  spiritual  lords  in  Mesopo- 
tamia ;  the  most  essential  of  these  requirements  and  the  one 
which  would  prove  the  most  onerous  was  that  which  regu- 
lated the  purity  of  the  holy  seed. 

43  Ezra's  expedition,  if  its  historicity  and  the  Biblical  date,  458,  be 
accepted,  followed  the  revolt  in  Egypt  of  Inarus  in  460,  and  was  com- 
missioned by  the  royal  policy  to  offset  the  disaffection  in  the  south- 
west. 


64  THE  SAMARITANS 

The  restoration  of  the  Judaean  church  as  proposed  by 
the  Babylonian  Diaspora  and  effectively  undertaken  by 
Ezra  and  Nehemia  was  ecclesiastical;  it  was  a  proposition 
not  of  the  family  of  David,  nor  of  the  highpriests,  for  these 
were  likely  to  be  as  secular-minded  as  royalty,  but  of  the 
doctors  of  the  Tora,  whose  schools  flourished  in  the  new 
home  and  produced  as  their  piece  de  resistance  the  Law,  or 
at  least  its  first  draft  in  the  Priest  Code.  We  can  imagine 
the  opposition  to  this  policy  produced  in  the  minds  of  the 
people  in  Judaea,  the  Am-ha-arec  or  Boors,  as  they  were 
contemptuously  called  by  the  Babylonian  exiles.44  The 
majority  in  any  church  is  worldly-minded,  does  not  easily 
or  for  long  acquiesce  in  Puritanism.  But  now  the  social 
liberties  of  the  Palestinians  were  to  be  restricted,  their 
franchise  in  the  community  reduced  to  little  or  nothing. 
Rebellion  to  the  Babylonian  policy,  feud  between  the  ele- 
ments of  the  community,  excommunication  of  the  dissatis- 
fied,—  these  were  the  results  of  the  second  restoration. 

How  far  "  the  Law  of  the  Lord  which  was  in  the  hand 
of  Ezra  the  scribe  "  met  with  success  we  cannot  judge,  but 
that  ecclesiastic  evidently  failed  in  the  matter  nearest  to 
his  heart.  He  attacked  with  burning  zeal  the  practice  of  in- 
termarriage with  the  peoples  of  the  lands,  requiring  that  all 
such  unions  should  be  ruthlessly  broken.  The  people  seem 
to  have  sullenly  allowed  the  appointment  of  a  commission 
to  settle  the  grievous  matter.  And  then  the  history  abruptly 
concludes  {Ezra,  9-10).  As  Nehemia  had  to  solve  the 
problem  afresh,  we  must  conclude  that  Ezra  failed.  The 
ties  of  humanity  outwitted  the  priest. 

Ezra's  successor,  the  governor  Nehemia  (445-433),  was 
a  far  more  strenuous  yet  withal  more  politic  ruler.     Backed 

44  The  term,  which  was  once  simply  a  social  one,  "  the  country- 
people,"  may  have  largely  obtained  its  sinister  meaning-  through  con- 
fusion with  the  other,  "the  peoples  of  the  lands,"  designating  the  Gen- 
tile colonists;  the  various  texts  and  versions  of  Ezra-Nehcmia  evince 
this  confusion  in  the  varying  use  of  the  singular  and  plural. 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD         65 

by  the  king's  commission  and  the  support  of  his  brothers  in 
Babylonia,  and  relying  upon  his  own  strength  and  con- 
science, he  did  not  first  consult  with  the  dissenting  people 
he  came  to  govern;  he  acted  and  ordered,  and  things  were 
done;  those  who  disobeyed  found  it  wise  to  leave  his 
jurisdiction,  otherwise  they  were  punished  or  banished. 
Rigorous  as  he  was,  he  seems  to  have  proceeded  with 
greater  caution  in  the  matter  of  the  mixed  marriages,  only 
forbidding  such  unions  in  the  future  {Nch.  10).  But  the 
cleft  made  between  the  factions  of  the  native  Jews  by  Ezra's 
course  was  not  healed  by  the  governor.  Further  he  had  to 
encounter  the  united  opposition  of  the  peoples  of  the  lands 
and  their  ambitious  chieftains,  who,  along  with  the  self- 
seeking  Persian  bureaucracy,  had  everything  to  lose  if  a 
considerable  slice  of  territory  and  the  fair  city  of  Jerusalem 
were  to  be  excluded  from  their  control  and  become  an 
aggressive  and  arrogant  imperium  in  imperio. 

We  learn  the  names  of  three  of  these  antagonistic  poli- 
ticians, and  hear  much  of  their  ways  and  wiles.  There  is 
Sanballat  the  Horonite,  doubtless  of  the  Gentile  colonists  in 
Samaria;  Tobia,  who  was  closely  allied  to  the  Judsean 
aristocracy  and  priesthood  (6,i7ff;  I3,4ff),  although  him- 
self an  Ammonite  (2,10)  ;  and  Gashmu  the  Arabian  (2,19; 
6,6).  These  gentry  dared  not  oppose  the  Persian  gov- 
ernor openly;  they  had  resort  to  ridicule  (4, iff),  or  at- 
tempts at  intrigue  and  assassination  (6,iff,  ioff).  But 
their  chief  engine  for  undoing  Nehemia's  work  was  the  en- 
couragement of  the  laxer  party  of  the  community  which 
opposed  the  new  order  of  the  day.  They  became  the  more 
or  less  open  heads  of  the  revolt  which  was  simmering 
against  the  administration.  It  was  not  difficult  to  find  al- 
lies; apart  from  the  easily  persuaded  Am-ha-areg,  the  Hoi 
Polloi,  they  had  their  long-standing  connections  with  the 
Jewish  nobles  and  priests,  in  his  disruption  of  which  rela- 
tions Nehemia  appeared  to  the  easy-going  ones  as  a  meddle- 
5 


66  THE  SAMARITANS 

some  innovator.  These  worldly-minded  Jewish  aristocrats 
had  doubtless  no  intention  of  breaking  with  the  governor, 
although  they  hoped  to  make  his  position  impossible.  But 
those  arch-intriguers,  particularly  the  cunning  Sanballat, 
led  them  farther  than  they  expected.  For  politics  is  often 
the  major  factor  in  schism  and  heresy. 

We  now  come  to  the  climax  of  the  story.  Nehemia 
briefly  relates  the  following  anecdote  (i3,28f)  :  "And  one 
of  the  sons  of  Joiada,  the  son  of  Eliashib  [i.  e.  the  high- 
priest],  the  son-in-law  of  Sanballat,  —  him  I  chased  from 
me.  Remember  them,  O  God,  because  of  the  defilement  of 
the  priesthood  and  of  the  covenant  of  the  priesthood  and 
the  Levites."  That  is,  Sanballat,  probably  taking  advan- 
tage of  Nehemia's  absence  (13,6),  had  formed  the  bold 
plan  of  allying  himself  with  the  hierarchy  through  a  union 
of  his  daughter  with  a  possible  heir  to  the  highpriesthood 
itself.  Sacrilegious  as  the  attempt  appeared  in  Nehemia's 
eyes,  it  is  but  one  instance  of  the  countless  ambitions  which 
since  the  days  of  David  to  its  cessation  sullied  that  high 
office;  Nehemia,  not  the  popular  sentiment,  expelled  the 
unworthy  priestling. 

The  Old  Testament  vouchsafes  nothing  more  about  this 
scandal,  and  in  no  way  connects  it  with  the  Samaritan 
schism.  Our  authority  for  such  an  identification  is  found 
solely  in  Josephus,  whose  story  may  be  summarized  as 
follows.45 

The  highpriest  Eliashib's  great-grandson  Jaddua  finally 
succeeded  to  the  highpriesthood,  and  his  brother  Manasse 
gained  as  wife  Nikaso,  the  daughter  of  one  Sanballat. 
This  man  had  been  sent  into  Samaria  by  the  last  Darius 
(i.  e.  Codomannus),  and  was  a  Kuthite  of  the  same  stock 
as  the  Samaritans  themselves.  Sanballat  arranged  this 
marriage,  recognizing  the  political  importance  of  Jerusalem, 
and  hoping  by  the  union  to  gain  the  goodwill  of  the  Jews. 

45  AJ  xi,  7,  2;  c.  8. 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD         67 

But  the  marriage  brought  upon  Manasse  the  odium  of  the 
Jews,  who  gave  him  the  choice  between  abdicating  his 
priestly  rights  and  the  divorce  of  his  wife.  Manasse  laid 
the  case  before  his  father-in-law;  the  latter  promised  to 
procure  for  him  the  dignity  of  highpriest  and  the  succession 
to  himself  in  the  governorship  of  Samaria,  also  undertaking 
to  build  for  him  a  temple  upon  Gerizim,  as  soon  as  the 
permission  of  Darius  could  be  secured.  Meanwhile  many 
of  the  priests  and  Levites  in  Jerusalem  seceded  to  Manasse, 
and  Sanballat  gave  them  lands  in  Samaria.  The  intriguer 
waited  for  the  outcome  of  Darius's  expedition  against  the 
conquering  Alexander,  and  when  the  former  was  defeated 
at  Issus,  he  renounced  his  liege-lord,  and  upon  Alexander's 
entrance  into  Palestine,  hastened  to  the  conqueror  with 
the  offer  of  his  troops,  and  gained  from  him  as  recompense 
the  boon  of  building  a  temple  on  Gerizim.  This  construc- 
tion Sanballat  hastily  accomplished,  but  died  within  nine 
months,  at  a  good  old  age.  Further  dealings  of  Alexander 
with  the  Samaritans  are  then  related. 

Josephus  thus  gives  some  very  exact  details  concerning 
the  origin  of  the  schism.  The  recusant  priest  is  named 
Manasse,46  and  his  wife's  name  is  also  given ;  Sanballat  se- 
cures the  Jewish  priest  as  his  daughter's  husband,  and 
builds  for  him  a  temple  on  Gerizim.  But  the  cardinal  dis- 
crepancy lies  in  this  that  the  date  is  of  the  age  of  Alexander 
the  Great  (332),  a  round  century  since  our  encounter  with 
Sanballat  in  Nehemia's  autobiography ! 

Despite  this  discrepancy,  the  identity  of  the  two  stories 
has  been  generally  accepted.47     There  could  hardly  have 

46  It  is  the  tradition  of  this  name  that  suggested  the  Massoretic 
change  of  Moses  into  Manasse  in  Ju.  18,  30;  see  Moore,  ad  loc. 

47  E.  g.  by  Wellhausen,  Israelitische  und  jildische  Geschichtei,  180. 
However,  especially  by  reason  of  the  exigency  felt  by  some  critics  for 
a  later  dating  of  the  codification  of  the  Pentateuch  than  the  age  of 
Nehemia,  several  recent  discussions  accept  Josephus's  date  and  hold 
that  Josephus  has  unwarrantably  combined  with  this  history  the  story 
of  the  highpriest's  grandson  in  Neh.     See  Steuernagel,  Einleitung  in 


68  THE  SAMARITANS 

been  two  Sanballats  in  succeeding  centuries,  each  of  whom 
married  his  daughter  to  a  member  of  the  highpriestly  fam- 
ily, an  offence  in  each  case  visited  with  excommunication. 
In 'our  piecing  of  the  two  stories  together,  we  find  a  very 
brief  statement   from   Nehemia's   pen   of   an  event  which 
belonged  to  his  immediate  cognizance,  while  Josephus  adds 
to  this  some  details,  and  contributes  the  important  key  to 
the  story  that  the  Samaritan  schism  grew  out  of  the  affair. 
Two  pertinent  questions  may  be  asked.     First:  Why  did 
not  Nehemia  narrate  the  fatal  sequel?     But  then  how  many 
important  things  are  omitted  in  the  Scripture  history !     And" 
further   the   consummation   of   the   schism  may   not   have 
ensued  for  years  after.     The  other  question  is,  Why  did 
Josephus  err  so  sadly  in  his  dates  ?     The  answer  to  this  is, 
in  the  first  place,  that  Josephus,  like  all  Jewish  literature  of 
antiquity,  is  absolutely  irresponsible  in  Persian  history  and 
chronology,  and  as  the  Ezra  books  name  no  Persian  king 
between  Artaxerxes  I.  and  the  last  Darius,  he  ignored  the 
suppression  of  a  century  which  he  was  perpetrating.48     In 
the  second  place  the  story  of  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan 
schism  has  been  drawn  into  the  great  vortex  of  the  Alexan- 
der Legend.     The  age  of  the  Conqueror  is  the  one  bright 
point  in  the  reminiscences  of  the  ancient  world,  and  was  a 
shining  mark  for  the  art  of  legend-manufacture.     Just  as 
the  Jews  had  their  legend  concerning  Alexander's  favor  to 
Jerusalem,  so  the  Samaritans  told  their  fables  concerning 
his  connection  with  their  sect  and  temple;  probably  in  this 
point  Josephus  was  depending  upon  some  Samaritan  tradi- 

das  Pentateuch,  276,  and  Bertholet's  review  in  Thcologische  Literatur- 
zeitung,  1901,  Sp.  188.  Holscher,  op.  cit.  37,  takes  the  ground  that  the 
datum  in  Nch.  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Samaritan  schism,  while 
Josephus's  story  is  an  unhistorical  Midrash  on  that  passage,  the  schism 
taking  place  later  in  the  Greek  period.  . 

4s  Tosephus's  arrangement  of  Persian  history  can  be  observed  in  the 
way  in  which  he  constructs  the  Persian  dynasty  from  the  Greek 
Esdras;  thus  as  the  latter  names  as  the  second  Persian  monarch 
Artaxerxes,  Josephus  identifies  him  with  Cambyses. 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD         69 

tion,  which  he,  or  rather  the  legend-cycle  which  he  followed, 
brought  into  connection  with  the  history  of  Sanballat.49  It 
may  be  argued  that  the  rejection  of  part  of  Josephus's  story 
condemns  it  all;  but  there  is  generally  some  fact  in  fiction, 
and  it  is  safer  for  criticism  to  save  whatever  is  possible  out 
of  the  ruins. 

If  this  combination  of  the  passage  in  Nehemia  and  the 
story  given  by  Josephus  be  allowed,  there  still  remain  many 
questions  for  the  answers  to  which  no  data  exist,  so  that 
only  a  speculative  reconstruction  is  possible.  The  mal- 
contents in  the  Jewish  community  in  Palestine  were  now 
reinforced  by  a  serious  defection  in  the  hierarchy;  moreover 
they  had  the  powerful  assistance  of  political  magnates  who 
were  ready  to  manipulate  religious  feud  for  private  ends. 
From  the  dependence  which  the  separated  faction  ever  after- 
wards exhibited  upon  the  spiritual  primacy  of  Jerusalem, 
it  appears  that  the  crystallization  of  the  dissenters  into  an 
independent  sect  was  due  rather  to  theirexcommunication  by 
the  Jewish  church  than  to  their  own  will.  But  driven  out 
and  held  aloof  by  Nehemia's  strong  will  and  policy,  as  long 
as  this  continued  the  ^policy  of  subsequent  administrations, 
the  separatists  were  forced  for  religion's  sake  as  well  as 
for  self-preservation  to  establish  an  organization  with  an 
independent   cult.     While   the  party   had   its    followers   in 

49  Another  Jewish  tradition  has  it  that  the  famous  Simon  the  Just 
{circa  200)  was  the  contemporary  of  Alexander ;  i.  e.,  Josephus's  line 
of  legend  took  for  its  hero  the  last  Biblical  highpriest,  while  another 
line  took  the  most  famous  priest  in  the  Greek  period.  Josippon  ben 
Gorion  makes  the  highpriest  Onias  his  contemporary.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  discuss  here  the  Jewish  chapter  in  the  Alexander  Romance. 
The  argument  for  its  historical  worthlessness  is  well  summed  up  by 
Niese,  Griechische  Gescliichte,  i,  83.  On  the  other  side  see  Heinichsen, 
Das  V erhaltniss  der  Juden  zu  Alexander  dem  Grossen,  Theol.  Studien 
und  Kritiken,  1871,  p.  458;  Mahaffy,  Empire  of  the  Ptolemies,  85.  The 
Samaritan  chronicles  draw  all  their  material  on  the  subject  from 
Jewish  legend,  and  have  absolutely  no  independent  historical  informa- 
tion ;  only  the  history  is  more  terribly  mixed  up  than  in  the  Jewish 
stories,  for  Sanballat  and  Zerubbabel  appear  as  adversaries  before 
Nebuchadrezzar,  Lib.  los.  45.  According  to  Chron.  Neub.  438,  the 
Samaritan  highpriest  at  this  time  was  Hezekia. 


yo  THE  SAMARITANS 

Jerusalem  and  throughout  Juda,  the  erection  of  a  new 
sanctuary  on  Judaean  soil  was  impracticable,  even  impossi- 
ble, as  long  as  the  Jews  stood  well  in  the  royal  favor.  The 
land  of  Samaria  however  was  independent  of  all  Jewish 
jurisdiction ;  here  a  home  offered  itself  through  the  political 
favor  of  the  political  leaders  and  officials  of  that  district, 
who  were  bent  on  doing  mischief  to  Jerusalem  and  its 
church.  Here  too,  if  Jerusalem  was  out  of  the  question, 
could  be  found  a  fitting  sanctuary,  for  Samaria  possessed 
most  of  the  traditional  sacred  sites  of  Israel's  history. 
Bethel  lay  too  near  Jerusalem.  But  Shechem,  always  an 
open  town  to  foreigners  in  ancient  times,  offered  itself,  per- 
haps contained  many  of  the  dissident  faction.  Its  ancient 
and  sacred  highplace  again  became  an  Israelitish  sanctuary, 
the  centre  of  the  cult  of  the  new  sect.  The  people  came 
generally  to  be  known  as  Samaritans,  or  by  a  more  appro- 
priate geographical  designation  used  by  Josephus,  as 
Shechemites.  In  their  own  conceit  they  called  themselves 
Israel,  leaving  the  name  Jews  to  their  opponents,  thus 
perpetuating  in  word  at  least  the  ancient  primacy  of  Joseph 
over  Juda.50 

With  regard  to  the  Samaritan  temple,  it  is  now  very 
generally  considered  that  there  is  a  distinct  Biblical  refer- 
ence to  it  in  the  D enter o-  or  rather  Trito-Isaia.  The  pas- 
sage in  question  is  Is.  66,  I  :  "  Thus  says  Yahwe :  Heaven 
is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  footstool.  What  manner 
of  house  will  you  build  me,  and  what  place  shall  be  my 
rest?"  The  would-be  builders  of  this  house  of  Yahwe 
are  then  associated  with  the  participants  in  the  abominable 
cults  which  are  described  in  65,  iff,  and  would  be  the  same 
as  the  bastard-brood  of  57,  3ff.  Accordingly  the  original 
Samaritan  temple  was  one  devoted  to  polytheism  and  va- 
rious obscene   rituals.     Despite   the   assent   that   has   been 

50  See  Additional  Note  B. 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD         yi 

gained  for  this  view,51  I  must  hold  to  the  interpretation  that 
is  as  old  as  St.  Stephen,  and  which  is  still  maintained  by 
Wellhausen,52  that  the  passage,  66,  iff,  is  a  prophetic  flight 
concerning  spiritual  worship  which  has  its  parallels  in  the 
Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  the  full  fruitage  coming  in  Chris- 
tianity. Against  the  prevailing  exegesis  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  prophet  belongs  to  those  who  are  excommunicated 
(v.  5),  not  to  the  triumphant  party  which  cast  out  the 
Shechemites.53 

It  has  been  suggested  by  Bertholet54  that  the  formation 
of  the  new  sect  really  cleared  the  air  for  Judaism,  and 
created  a  safety-valve  against  the  danger  to  which  the 
latter  lay  exposed  in  the  admission  of  aliens.  As  for  the 
relations  between  the  two  communities  after  the  separation, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  hold  that  the  schism  from  the  be- 
ginning excluded  social  and  religious  intercourse.  We  pos- 
sess no  further  data  concerning  the  Palestinian  Samaritans 
until  the  lid  Century  B.  C,  in  the  period  of  the  Maccabees. 
But  the  intervening  age  was  not  one  that  was  committed 
to  the  rigorism  of  Ezra  and  Nehemia,  or  of  the  Chasidim 
and  Pharisees  of  the  lid  Century.  The  fortunes  of  the 
Jewish  Church  were  chiefly  in  the  control  of  the  highpriest- 
hood,  which  appears  in  general  to  have  been  utterly  worldly- 
minded.55 

After  all,  a  branch  of  the  Jewish  highpriesthood  reigned 
in  the  Samaritan  sect,  and,  as  what  cannot  be  cured  must 

51  First  suggested  by  Duhm,  and  since  more  or  less  positively  ac- 
cepted by  such  scholars  as  Meyer,  Cheyne,  Kittel,  Marti. 

52  Acts,  7,  48ff;  Wellhausen,  op.  cit.  165.  See  also  Kleinert,  Die 
Profeten  Israels,  160:  "Das  Wagnis  Duhms,  wider  den  klaren  Wort- 
laut,"  etc. 

53  If  Duhm's  view  is  correct,  an  explanation  is  required  for  the  transi- 
tion of  the  idolatrous  Samaritan  community  into  a  sect  imitative  of 
Judaism,  a  phenomenon,  which,  as  already  remarked,  would  be  a 
spiritual  marvel. 

54  Stelhing,  176. 

55  N.  B.  the  scandalous  histories  of  the  priesthood  narrated  by  To- 
sephus  AI  xi,  7;  xii,  4,  and  the  utterly  Pagan  character  of  the  hierarchy 
in  the  time  of  Antiochns  Epiphanes. 


J2.  THE  SAMARITANS 

be  endured,  family  ties  doubtless  kept  communication  open 
and  easy.  We  may  compare  the  parallel  phenomenon  of  the 
erection  by  a  scion  of  the  priesthood  of  another  rival  temple, 
that  at  Leontopolis  in  Egypt,  which  does  not  seem  to  have 
provoked  any  extreme  exasperation.56  The  close  relation- 
ship in  theology  and  practice  of  the  Samaritans  with  the 
later  Sadducees,  who  were  the  party  of  the  hierarchy,  can 
best  be  explained  by  the  supposition  of  the  maintenance  of 
intercourse  between  the  priests  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Shech- 
em.  In  addition  to  this  worldly-minded  party  there  was 
also  the  spiritually  noble  "  Broad  Church  "  section  in  the 
Jewish  community,  which,  following  the  cue  of  much  pro- 
phetic teaching,  insisted  more  on  the  catholicity  of  the 
ideal  Israel  than  on  its  necessary  rigorism.  The  spirit  of 
this  school  of  thought  inspired  Deutero-Isaia;  it  produced 
the  prophetical  romance  of  Jona,  while  the  Book  of  Ruth 
is  now  attributed  to  it  by  many  scholars.57  A  more  prosaic 
yet  equally  ethical  offshoot  of  the  same  school  was  the 
Wisdom  literature.  With  the  triumph  of  Pharisaism  in  the 
Jewish  Church  this  party  was  suppressed,  most  of  its  writ- 
ings condemned.  But  enough  of  its  product  remains  to 
warrant  us  in  speculating  upon  the  possible  affiliations  be- 
tween the  liberal  tendencies  in  Judaism  and  the  schismatic 
yet  monotheistic  and  ethically  earnest  sect  of  the  Samari- 
tans. In  more  than  one  party  of  Judaism  for  various 
reasons  the  Shechemites  must  have  received  comfort  and 
so  have  found  the  door  kept  open  with  the  mother-church. 
For  from  all  we  know  of  Samaritanism  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  remained  under  the  steady  influence  of  Ju- 
daism, and  that  this  spiritual  patronage  was  so  strong  and 
so  necessary  that  even  after  the  complete  excommunication 

56  Josephus,  AJ  xiii,  3.  Many  scholars  refer  the  favorable  comment 
of  Is.  19,  19,  to  this  Egyptian  temple.  The  event  belongs  to  the  early 
part  of  the  lid  Century. 

57  In  this  period  was  established  the  proselytizing  propaganda  of 
Judaism;  see  Bertholet,  op.  cit.  178. 


THEIR  ORIGIN  IN  THE  PERSIAN  PERIOD         73 

of  the  schismatics  in  the  Hid  and  IVth  Christian  centuries 
Rabbinism  still  infiltrated  into  Samaria.  The  proofs  and 
fruits  of  this  spiritual  connection  are  found  in  the  Samaritan 
possession  of  the  Jewish  priesthood,  of  the  First  Canon  of 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  of  most  of  those  tenets  that  marked 
earlier,  Sadducasan  Judaism  in  distinction  from  the  Phar- 
isaic development.  Because  of  the  persistence  of  its  orig- 
inal type,  largely  contributed  to  by  its  continuance  through- 
out the  centuries  in  its  original  habitat,  the  Samaritan  sect 
stands  as  a  monument  of  early  Judaism.  Its  value  in 
this  historical  regard  has  not  yet  been  appreciated  by 
scholarship. 

The  light  thrown  upon  the  date  of  the  codification  of 
the  Law  is  a  moot  point  in  Pentateuchal  criticism.  It  is 
argued  that  the  Law  must  have  reached  its  final  form  by 
the  time  of  the  exclusion  of  the  priest  who  became  the 
leader  of  the  Samaritans,  circa  432. 58  Other  scholars  think 
that  the  data  bearing  upon  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan 
sect  are  too  frail  to  control  our  Pentateuchal  chronology.59 
In  any  case  we  know  too  little  of  the  relations  between  the 
Jews  and  the  Samaritans  for  at  least  200  years  to  say 
that  the  Pentateuch  could  not  have  been  further  revised  af- 
ter the  schism,  on  the  ground  that  the  Samaritan  copy 
would  give  a  much  older  and  different  text.  It  is  possible 
that  further  revisions  at  Jerusalem,  as  in  the  case  of  Ex. 
35-40,  were  readily  accepted  by  the  spiritually  dependent 
community  at  Shechem.  But  with  the  Jewish  promulga- 
tion of  the  Second  Canon,  that  of  the  Prophets,  about 
200,  a  definitive  break  must  have  separated  the  two  sects  on 
the  question  as  to  the  extent  of  Scripture.  The  northern 
community  could  not  accept  the  Second  Canon  with  its 
pronounced  proclivities  for  Juda,  David,  and  Jerusalem.60 

5S  So  Wellhausen,  op.  cit.  180;  Carpenter,  Pentateuch1,  i,  179. 

59  Kautzsch,  RE2,  xiii,  344 ;  Steuernagel,  Einleitung,  276. 

60  There  are  doubtless  many  Biblical  passages  which,  if  we  had  the 
key,   would  throw   light   upon   the  relations  of  Jews  and   Samaritans 


74  THE  SAMARITANS 

between  Nehemia's  age  and  200  B.  C.  But  in  their  present  state  they 
give  room  only  for  speculation.  Reference  may  here  be  made  to 
Holscher,  op.  cit.  30,  "  Die  Juden  nach  Nehemia,"  who  argues  that  the 
Book  of  Judith  in  its  geographical  data  assumes  the  Jewish  control  of 
Samaria  in  the  late  Persian  period,  and  that  the  symbolic  act,  in  Zech. 
11,  14,  of  breaking  the  staff  to  portend  the  breaking  of  the  brotherhood 
between  Juda  and  Israel,  refers  to  the  schism.  Holscher  would  date 
this  event  about  300,  but  the  date  of  Deutcro-Zecharia  is  too  obscure 
to  be  the  basis  of  chronology.  In  1  Ch.  9,  3,  there  is  an  obscure  refer- 
ence to  people  of  Ephraim  and  Manasse  resident  in  Jerusalem,  a 
family  of  Shilonites  being  specified,  v.  5.  These  were  doubtless  north- 
ern Israelites  who  persisted  in  devotion  to  the  Jewish  sanctuary.  To 
the  Chronicler  the  northern  territory  is  never  Samaria,  but  always  the 
land  of  Ephraim,  ii,  25,  7,  or  of  Ephraim  and  Manasse,  ii,  30,  1.  If 
such  Psalms  as  Ps.  80  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  Post-exilic  age,  some 
interesting  problems  present  themselves.  Cheyne  has  interpreted  the 
"  libations  of  blood "  in  Ps.  16  of  the  superstitious  practices  of  the 
Samaritans,  but  there  is  no  proof  for  this  against  them  (see  his 
Jewish  Religious  Life,  29).  In  Ps.  60,  8-14  (Ps.  108,  8-14)  scholars 
from  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  down  to  Cheyne  and  Duhm  have  found 
a  reference  to  John  Hyrcanus's  capture  of  Shechem  in  the  words :  "  I 
will  divide  Shechem,  mete  out  the  valley  of  Succoth  " ;  but  the  friendly 
reference  to  Manasse  and  Ephraim  in  the  following  verse  militates 
against  this  historical  interpretation.  I  may  take  opportunity  here  to 
note  the  excellent  characterization  of  the  Samaritan  schism  in  Stade's 
most  recent  work,  Biblische  Theologie  des  Alien  Testaments,  §  147. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SAMARITANS  UNDER  THE  HELLENIC 
EMPIRE.1 

At  the  end  of  the  last  Chapter  probable  references  to  the 
relations  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  in  the  Hel- 
lenic age  have  been  anticipated.  When  we  turn  now  to 
the  political  history  of  Samaria  under  Hellenism,  we  find 
few  further  data  concerning  the  sect  until  the  age  of  the 
Maccabees.  It  is  true  that  the  land  of  Samaria  figures  con- 
stantly in  the  wars  of  Alexander  and  of  the  Diadochi. 
Its  capital  Samaria  rebelled  against  the  conqueror  and  re- 
ceived exemplary  punishment;2  Eusebius  also  reports  that 
the  city  was  rebuilt  by  Perdiccas  and  subsequently,  in  296-5, 
was  again  destroyed  by  Demetrius  Poliorcetes.3  But  these 
facts  throw  no  light  upon  the  Samaritan  sect,  although  it 
may  be  presumed  that  it  sorely  suffered  under  the  harryings 
of  the  land,  and  that  its  members,  men  of  the  hardy  Hebrew 
blood,  were  often  found  among  the  rebels. 

Josephus  describes  the  calamities  brought  upon  Syria  and 
upon  Juda  in  particular  by  the  wars  of  the  first  Ptolemy, 
and  records  that  this  monarch  carried  off  many  captives 
from  the  hill-country  of  Juda,  and  the  places  about  Jeru- 
salem, and  Mount  Gerizim.4    The  result  of  these  Ptolemaic 

1  See  Juynboll,  Hist.  Sam.  93;  Schurer,  GJV  i;  Appel,  Qutzstiones 
de  rebus  Samaritanorum,  c.  i. 

2  Quintus  Curtius,  Hist,  iv,  5,  8 ;  Eusebius,  Chron.  ed.  Schoene,  ii, 
114.  The  statement  is  rejected  by  Niese,  Griechische  Geschichte,  i, 
88,  n.  3. 

3  Niese  also  denies  this  latter  datum;  op.  fit.  1,  355,  n.  6.  It  may  be- 
long, however,  to  the  famous  Syrian  campaign  of  311. 

4  AJ  xii,  1.  Despite  the  doubts  of  Mahaffy,  Empire  of  the  Ptolemies, 
43,  Josephus  is  corroborated  by  Diodorus,  Hist,  xix,  86,  who  reports 

75 


76  THE  SAMARITANS 

wars  and  conquests  was  the  connection  made  between  Egypt 
and  the  Jews  and  Samaritans,  which  brought  many  of  both 
sects,  partly  as  captives,  partly  as  willing  immigrants,  to 
the  flourishing  land  of  the  Ptolemies  and  its  new  metropolis, 
Alexandria.  Josephus  also  reports  that  Alexander  levied 
Samaritan  troops  for  service  in  Egypt.5  We  have  thus  to 
date  from  this  period  the  beginning  of  the  Samaritan  Dias- 
pora in  Egypt,  which  enjoyed  in  the  new  home  a  like  his- 
tory, on  a  minor  scale,  to  that  of  the  great  Jewish  colony. 
The  historical  data  for  this  Samaritan  Di^pora  are  given 
in  a  subsequent  Chapter.6  Both  Jewish  and  Samaritan  rec- 
ords contain  accounts  of  the  quarrels  which  arose  in  Egypt 
between  the  two  sects.  Josephus,  after  describing  their 
common  emigration  to  that  land,7  narrates  the  contentions 
arising  between  them  as  to  the  proper  destination  of  the 
sacrifices,  whether  Jerusalem  or  Gerizim ;  probably  the  re- 
mittance of  the  royal  temple-gifts  was  the  cause  of  dispute. 
Josephus  also  gives  a  legend  concerning  a  disputation  be- 
tween the  rival  sects  held  before  Ptolemy  Philometor  (182- 
146). s  The  spokesman  for  the  Jews  was  Andronicus  ben- 
Meshullam,  the  advocates  of  the  Samaritans  Sabbseus  and 
Theodosius.9  The  former,  who  spoke  first,  argued  so  con- 
vincingly that  the  king  accepted  the  Jewish  plea,  and  put 
the  Samaritan  orators  to  death.  A  similar  story,  evidently 
borrowed  from  the  Jewish  legend,  only  with  fortunes  of 

that  after  the  battle  of  Gaza  (312)  the  Egyptian  ruler  captured  the 
strongholds  of  South  Syria.  Abu'l  Fath,  p.  93,  tells  of  this  Ptolemy 
that  he  sent  one  Urudus  to  seize  the  temple  treasures  at  Shechem,  but 
that  he  desisted  upon  being  shown  a  charter  from  Alexander  the  Great 
ordering  those  funds  to  be  expended  for  the  priests,  widows  and  or- 
phans. Juynboll,  Hist.  Sam.  98,  has  rightly  identified  Urudus  with 
Alexander's  brother,  Arrhidreus ;  see  further  Clermont-Ganneau,  in 
Journal  des  Savants,  1904,  Jan.,  p.  37. 

5  AJ  xi,  8,  7. 

6  Chapter  VIII,  §  2. 

7  AJ  xii,  1. 

8  AJ  xiii,  3,  4. 

9  Traditional  heresiarchs  of  the  Samaritans ;  see  Chapter  XIII,  §  1. 


UNDER  THE  HELLENIC  EMPIRE  77 

course  reversed,  is  told  by  the  Samaritan  writers.10  Doubt- 
less such  theological  disputes  were  frequently  carried  on  in 
Egypt,  and  at  times,  as  when  property  rights  were  con- 
cerned, the  secular  courts  must  have  been  appealed  to. 

As  for  their  native  land,  the  Samaritan  sect  did  not  pos- 
sess the  numbers  and  influence  enjoyed  by  the  Jews  in  Juda, 
and  were  little  able  to  oppose  the  Hellenization  of  Samaria. 
This  tendency  was  working  rapidly  enough  in  Juda,  but 
must  have  been  far  more  extensive  in  the  North.  Hence 
it  is  especially  necessary  from  this  time  on  to  draw  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  religious  sect  of  the  Samaritans,  a  com- 
paratively small  and  scattered  body,  and  the  citizens  of  the 
land,  mostly  Pagan,  those  who  were  civilly  Samaritans. 
The  term  Samaritan  does  not  necessarily  refer  to  the  sub- 
ject of  our  present  study. 

The  Samaritan  sect  at  last  comes  forth  into  the  clear 
light  of  day  in  the  Maccabsean  period,  for  which  we  possess 
the  abundant  Jewish  sources.  The  Samaritans  played  no 
part  in  the  brilliant  war  for  liberty  fought  by  their  Jewish 
brothers  against  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  But  of  their  posi- 
tion toward  this  struggle  we  have  no  certain  knowledge. 
That  the  mad  passion  of  Antiochus.  "  the  Evident  God," 
affected  the  northern  sect  appears  from  the  statement  of 
2  Mac.  6,  2  that  the  tyrant  established  not  only  the  cult  of 
Zeus  Olympios  in  Jerusalem,  but  also  that  of  Zeus  Xenios, 
the  Hospitable  Zeus,  on  Mount  Gerizim.11     Josephus  gives 

™  Abu'l  Fath,  94;  Chron.  Adler,  38.  Here  the  Ptolemy  is  a  com- 
position of  Philadelplius  and  Philometer,  as  Levi  points  out,  ad  loc; 
he  procured  translations  into  the  Greek  from  the  learned  men  of  both 
sects  Eleazar  (he  of  the  Aristeas-legend)  representing  the  Jews  and 
Aaron  with  Symmachus  and  Theodotion  (the  authors  of  the  Greek 
versions')  the  Samaritans;  the  king's  observation  of  the  discrepan- 
cies between  the  two  texts  of  the  Law  causes  him  to  inquire  further, 
and  the  Samaritans  succeed  in  convincing  him  that  they  are  the  legiti- 
mate body.  ,     .         ,  .         .  ,    ,  .         , 

11  According  to  the  usual  rendering  this  epithet  was  given  because 
of  the  hospitable  character  of  the  natives.  (Could  the  epithet  have 
been  su^ested  by  the  first  syllable  of  Gerizim,  ger,  1.  e.,  stranger?) 


78  THE  SAMARITANS 

a  much  more  extensive  story.12  He  relates  that  the  She- 
chemites,  i.e.,  the  Samaritan  sect,  under  the  name  of  Sidon- 
ians,13  sent  a  petition  to  Antiochus,  in  which,  after  denying 
all  relationship  with  the  Jews  except  in  the  matter  of  the 
observance  of  certain  religious  customs  of  the  land,  they 
asked  the  king  to  allow  them  to  name  their  temple,  "  which 
at  present  has  no  name,"  after  Zeus  Hellenios.  This  boon 
the  king  granted.  On  the  other  hand  an  obscure  state- 
ment of  2  Mac.  5,  23  relates  that  Antiochus  placed  a  gov- 
ernor "  in  Gerizim,"  the  fact  being  recorded  in  connection 
with  the  account  of  the  officials  sent  to  suppress  the  Jews.14 
From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  king  expected  resistance 
from  the  Samaritans,  so  that  Josephus's  story  appears  some- 
what gratuitous.15  That  the  Samaritans  took  no  part  in 
the  immortal  struggle  of  the  Maccabees  is  without  doubt  a 
fact;  probably  they  bowed  before  the  storm  in  silence  if 
not  with  acquiescence.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
trouble  which  came  upon  the  Jews  was  contributed  to  by 
their  own  factions,  and  that  Antiochus's  innovations  were 
a  response  to  the  Hellenizing  party  which  had  control  in 
Judaea.  Nor  could  we  expect  that  the  northern  sect  would 
have  gone  to  the  assistance  of  the  Jews.  But  this  point  is 
clear  that  the  Samaritans  preserved  their  faith  through  these 
troublous  times. 

But  Willrich,  Judaica,  139,  comparing  Josephus's  narrative,  is  probably 
right  in  translating  eTvyxavov  by  "  they  obtained  their  request." 

12  AJ  xii,  5,  5. 

13  See  Additional  Note  B. 

14  It  is  uncertain  whether  "  in  Gerizim  "  refers  to  a  citadel  on  the 
mountain,  in  which  case  it  would  be  the  predecessor  of  the  fortifica- 
tions constructed  there  by  Christian  emperors;  or  whether  it  means 
the  district  of  Shechem  in  general. 

15  On  Josephus's  attitude  towards  the  Samaritans,  see  Chapter  IX. 
De  Sacy  correctly  remarks,  N.  et  E.  3 :  "  II  est  meme  certain  que  si 
le  culte  des  idoles  efit  ete  etabli  alors  parmi  les  Samaritajns,  ils  n'au- 
roient  en  rien  a  apprehender  de  la  fureur  d'Antiochus,  et  n'auroient  pas 
craint  de  se  voir  confondus  avec  les  Juifs."  That  the  Samaritans  were 
in  opposition  to  Epiphanes  is  the  view  also  of  the  Jewish  scholar 
Appel,  op.  cit.  38. 


UNDER  THE  HELLENIC  EMPIRE  79 

In  the  early  part  of  the  Maccabaean  wars  for  independ- 
ence the  land  of  Samaria  appears  to  have  been  generally 
avoided  by  the  Jewish  armies;  it  contained  the  Gentile 
stronghold  of  Samaria,  while  all  the  classes  of  the  popula- 
tion were  antagonistic.  Only  in  the  southern  districts, 
where  the  Jews  seem  to  have  settled  in  the  course  of  their 
notable  expansion,  was  any  part  of  the  land  favorable  to 
the  new  Jewish  state.  Finally  after  the  conclusion  of  terms 
with  the  Syrian  king  Demetrius  II,  three  cantons  of  Samari- 
tan territory  were  formally  annexed  to  Judaea,  Ephraim, 
Lydda  and  Ramathaim,  circa  145.  This  considerable  ac- 
quisition pushed  the  boundary  of  Judaea  far  into  the  interior 
of  Samaria,  the  limit  of  Borkeos,  which  Josephus  describes 
as  the  boundary  in  his  day,  marking  probably  the  extent  of 
the  annexation.16 

With  Judaea's  outposts  now  thrust  far  up  into  the  ancient 
territory  of  Joseph,  the  second  generation  of  the  Hasmo- 
naean  house  found  itself  strong  enough  to  invade  the  re- 
mainder of  Samaritan  soil,  and  not  only  to  pay  off  old 
scores  with  the  degenerate  Syrian  kingdom,  but  also  to 
take  vengeance  on  the  weakened  Samaritan  sect.  In  the 
year  128  John  Hyrcanus  captured  Shechem  and  Mount 
Gerizim,  and  subdued  the  Kuthaean  sect, —  so  Josephus  re- 
lates,17 adding  the  comment  that  now  their  temple  was  dev- 
astated after  an  existence  of  200  years.  "  The  Day  of 
Gerizim  "  commemorated  in  the  Jewish  Fast-Roll,  the  date 
being  Kislew  21,  is  to  be  connected  with  this  signal  triumph 
of  militant  Judaism  over   its  competitor.18     This  success 

16  For  the  limits  between  Judaea  and  Samaria,  see  Chapter  VIII,  §  1, 
and  for  the  annexation  of  the  three  cantons,  see  below,  p.  144.  To 
this  event  is  due  the  legend  of  Pseudo-Hecataeus,  quoted  by  Josephus, 
C.  Ap.  ii,  4,  that  Alexander  gave  the  Jews  the  land  of  Samaria  free  of 
tribute. 

17  AJ  xiii,  9,  1 ;  BJ  i,  2,  6. 

18  The  Fast-Roll,  or  Megillat  Taanit,  is  given  by  Derenbourg,  His- 
toire  de  la  Palestine,  439;  Dalman,  Aramaische  Dialektproben,  1.  The 
former  scholar,  pp.  41,   72,  hesitates   concerning  the   reference  of  the 


80  THE  SAMARITANS 

against  the  Samaritan  sect  was  later  followed  up  by  the 
conquest  of  the  Pagan  capital.  An  expedition  under  Hyr- 
canus's  sons  Antigonus  and  Aristobulus  captured  the  city 
of  Samaria  after  a  year's  siege,  and  attempted  to  obliterate 
even  the  traces  of  the  city's  existence;  this  happened  not 
long  before  107.19  The  conquest  was  completed  by  the  cap- 
ture of  Scythopolis,  which  dominated  the  northern  border 
of  Samaria.20 

Once  again  the  drama  of  Jewish  history  operated  on  Sa- 
maritan soil.  About  the  year  83  Alexander  Jannaeus  met 
the  forces  of  Demetrius  III,  supported  by  the  rebellious 
Pharisaic  party,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Shechem,  and  was 
there  routed.21  In  Josephus's  narrative  of  Alexander's  later 
conquests,  after  the  abatement  of  the  civil  strife,  the  land  of 
Samaria  is  omitted,  so  that  it  is  to  be  inferred  that  the 
district  still  lay  under  Jewish  control.  This  supposition 
is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  when  Pompey  subjugated  the 
Jews,  in  the  year  63,  he  greatly  reduced  their  territory; 
the  city  of  Samaria  was  specifically  detached  and  annexed 

celebration ;  the  glossator  to  the  Megillat  refers  the  anniversary  to  the 
visit  of  Alexander  to  the  Jews  and  Samaritans. 

19  AJ  xiii,  10,  1-3;  BJ  i,  2,  7;  Schiirer,  GJV  \,  267. 

20Abu'l  Fath  gives  more  than  usual  information  about  this  period, 
p.  102.  He  relates  Hyrcanus's  capture  of  Samaria,  but  denies  that  he 
took  Shechem.  There  is  also  a  confused  recollection  of  the  attempted 
interference  in  the  war  by  Ptolemy  Lathyrus,  which  was  opposed  by 
his  mother,  Cleopatra,  as  Josephus  relates;  but  she  is  confused  with 
the  last  Cleopatra.  (See  Vilmar,  Abul  Fath,  p.  lxiii ;  Juynboll,  Hist. 
Sam.  no.)  But  the  chronicle's  most  original  contribution  to  the  his- 
tory is  that  Hyrcanus  at  the  end  of  his  life  became  persuaded  of  the 
legitimacy  of  the  Samaritan  cult,  and  sent  to  Gerizim  tithes  and  sac- 
rifice, p.  105.  This  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  desertion  of  Hyrcanus 
by  the  Pharisaic  party  and  his  alliance  with  the  Sadducees.  The  legend 
bears  a  correct  recollection  of  the  ancient  affinity  between  the  latter 
party  and  the  Samaritans,  and  it  is  a  plausible  hypothesis  that  the 
preservation  of  the  northern  sect  during  this  period  of  absolute  Jewish 
control  of  Samaria  was  due  to  the  liberalistic  policy  of  the  Hasmonse- 
ans  to  use  the  Samaritans  as  a  counterweight  to  the  Pharisaic  rigor- 
ists.  Thus  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  despised  northerners  played 
their  part  in  the  fatal  internecine  strife  which  now  began  to  rage  in  the 
south  to  Juda's  undoing. 

21  AJ  xiii,  14,  1-2 ;  BJ  i,  4,  4- 


UNDER  THE  HELLENIC  EMPIRE  8 1 

to  the  new  Syrian  province.22  This  liberation  of  Samaria, 
which,  it  appears,  had  arisen  from  its  ashes,  involved  the 
release  of  the  greater  part  of  the  district  from  the  Jewish 
usurpation.  From  this  time  forth  the  Samaritan  sect  is 
forever  free  of  the  hated  domination  of  the  sister-sect. 

22  A  J  xiv,  4,  4 ;  BJ  i,  7,  7. 
6 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  SAMARITANS  UNDER  THE  ROMAN 
EMPIRE. 

§    I.       TO  THE  DESTRUCTION   OF  JERUSALEM,  A.   D.   7O.1 

The  resuscitation  of  the  district  of  Samaria  came  with 
the  strong  arm  of  Roman  force  and  law.  The  ravages  of 
the  contending  Hellenistic  armies  now  ceased,  and  the  am- 
bitions of  the  Jewish  state  were  brought  under  control ;  the 
inhabitants  of  the  land  enjoyed  the  fruits  of  an  unknown 
peace,  and  those  who  clung  to  the  faith  of  Gerizim  could 
pursue  the  liberties  of  Roman  subjects  in  the  matter  of  re- 
ligion without  fear  of  molestation  from  the  fanaticism  of  the 
stronger  sect  in  the  South.  The  ancient  rivalry  was  still 
maintained,  and  when  Jews  and  Samaritans  met  in  town 
or  on  country  road  it  blazed  out  in  acts  of  violence,  wherein 
either  party  gave  and  took.  But  the  political  value  of 
Samaria  was  appreciated  by  Rome,  and  especially  by  the 
astute  Herod,  for  it  offered  a  sure  foothold  against  the  tur- 
bulence of  the  Jews;  its  majority  of  pagan  citizens  despised 
the  Jews,  while  the  Shechemites  hated  them. 

Most  of  the  history  of  this  period  revolves  around  the 
capital  city  Samaria,  whose  ancient  glories  were  once  more 
restored.  Rebuilt  by  an  early  governor  of  Syria,  Gabinius 
( 57-55 ),2  it  became  the  favorite  seat  of  king  Herod.  His 
interest  in  the  fair  land  to  the  north  seems  to  have  been 
early  excited,  for  Josephus  informs  us  that  upon  his  father's 

1  See  the  authorities  named  at  the  beginning  of  the  previous  Chapter. 

2  AJ  xiv,  5,  3 ;  BJ  i,  8,  4.     For  the  name  "  Gabinians  "  assumed  by 
the  citizens,  see  Cedrenus,  i,  323,  ed.  Bekker. 

82 


UNDER  ROMAN  RULE  TO  A.  D.  70  83 

death  that  diplomatic  politician  "  cheered  up  Samaria  and 
stopped  its  factions,"3  and  so  we  are  not  surprised  that  in 
his  contest  with  the  Hasmonaean  Antigonus  the  city  of  Sa- 
maria was  arrayed  on  his  side.4  His  cunning  handling  of 
Augustus  after  the  battle  of  Actium  brought  him,  along  with 
the  recognition  of  his  monarchy,  the  boon  of  Samaria,5  and 
thus  that  district  fell  once  more  under  the  sway  of  a  king 
of  the  Jews.  But  the  circumstances  of  the  new  relation 
were  now  favorable  to  the  North.  Herod  proceeded  to  re- 
build and  beautify  the  capital,  paying  homage  to  Caesar 
by  calling  it  Sebaste,  i.e.  Augusta,  at  the  same  time  erecting 
a  temple  in  the  emperor's  honor.6  But  Herod's  purpose 
was  not  merely  an  aesthetic  one,  although  he  enjoyed  him- 
self in  the  gay  city  of  his  creation  as  he  never  did  in 
sombre  Jerusalem.  Josephus  correctly  gives  the  reason  for 
this  new  and  elaborate  foundation,  that  "  it  should  be  a 
stronghold  to  keep  the  land  and  Jerusalem  in  awe,  from 
which  latter  place  Samaria  was  but  a  day's  journey."  With 
this  city  of  his  choice  much  of  the  tragedy  of  his  life  was 
enacted.  Here  he  married  Mariamne,  in  its  neighborhood 
after  her  execution  he  tried  to  drown  his  grief  in  the  pleas- 
ures of  the  chase,  and  here  at  the  end  of  his  life  his  and 
Mariamne's  sons,  Alexander  and  Aristobulus,  were  exe- 
cuted. A  Samaritan  lady  was  one  of  his  wives.  If  then 
it  was  a  king  of  Jerusalem  who  reigned  over  the  district, 
he  was  nevertheless  a  king  in  Samaria,  and  his  favor  and 
presence  must  have  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  well- 
being  of  his  Samaritan  subjects,  Israelites  as  well  as  Pa- 
gans.7 

In  the  disturbances  which  broke  out  after  Herod's  death, 

3  AJ  xiv,  11,  14. 

4  AJ  xiv,  15,  12;  BJ  1,  17,  5- 

5  AJ  xv,  7,  3 ;  BJ  i,  20,  3. 

6  AJ  xv,  8,  5;   BJ   i,  21,  2;    Strabo,  Geog.   ed   Kramer,   xvi,  2,  34. 

7  Abu'l  Fath,  116,  records  that  he  slew  many  Samaritans  as  well  as 
Jews.  For  the  Samaritan  tradition  of  the  Samaritan  wife,  see  below, 
Chap.  VI,  note  39. 


84  THE  SAMARITANS 

Samaria  remained  loyal  to  the  interests  of  the  empire;  Varus 
is  said  to  have  spared  it,8  and  subsequently  upon  the  division 
of  the  kingdom  among  Herod's  sons,  the  district,  which 
now  fell  along  with  Judaea  to  the  tetrarchy  of  Archelaus, 
met  its  reward  in  having  one-quarter  of  its  taxes  remitted.9 
Finally  when  Archelaus  was  dispossessed  (A.  D.  6),  Judaea 
and  Samaria  were  united  in  a  province  of  the  third  class, 
subordinate  to  the  proconsulate  province  of  Syria.10  The 
seat  of  the  new  procuratorship  was  Caesarea,  itself  one  of 
Herod's  foundations,  so  that  now  the  political  centre  lay  to 
the  extreme  northwest,  a  condition  favorable  to  the  Samari- 
tans. Notwithstanding  the  union  of  the  lands  of  Juda  and 
Samaria,  the  distinction  between  their  boundaries  was  still 
preserved,  the  Jews  having  recovered,  probably  in  Herod's 
time,  the  Samaritan  cantons  that  were  cut  off  by  Pompey.1 * 
King  Herod,  only  half  Jew  as  he  was,  had  been  a  buffer 
between  the  mighty  empire  and  the  Judaean  state  with  its 
acute  sensibilities.  But  with  the  passing  of  his  diplomatic 
management,  the  index  of  doom  now  began  to  point  towards 
the  well-nigh  inevitable  catastrophe  of  the  great  Jewish  re- 
volt, the  threatening  clouds  being  only  for  a  short  while 
riven  by  the  reign  of  Herod  Agrippa  (41-44).  One  mani- 
festation of  these  symptoms  was  the  recrudescence  of  the 
hostility  of  Jew  and  Samaritan,  in  which  conflict  the  weaker 
sect,  probably  encouraged  by  the  favor  of  the  political  mas- 
ters, even  appears  as  the  aggressor.  Josephus  narrates  two 
ugly  incidents  of  this  perpetual  quarrel.  In  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  first  procurator  Coponius  (6-9),  the  Samari- 
tans gained  access  on  a  certain  Passover  to  the  porches  of 
the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  and  scattered  about  dead  men's 

8  AJ  xvii,  10,  9 ;  BJ  ii,  5,  1.  . 

9  AJ  xvii,  11,  4;  BJ  ii,  6,  3;  cf.  Nicolaus  Dam.,  in  Muller,  bragm. 

hist.  Grcec.  iii,  35*-  .         .     ,    ,    ,  A,     ,      ,     ,  c 

10  Schiirer,  GJV  i,  454.     This  province  included  the  land  of  bamana, 
for  Pilate  governed  the  latter  land  as  well. 

11  For  Josephus's  description  of  these  boundaries,  see  below,  p.  145. 


UNDER  ROMAN  RULE  TO  A.  D.  70  85 

bones;  since  this  outrage,  Josephus  adds,  the  Jews  forbade 
that  sect  admission  to  their  feasts,  from  which  they  had  not 
hitherto  been  excluded.12  But  a  far  more  serious  disturb- 
ance occurred  in  the  days  of  the  procurator  Cumanus 
(A.  D.  52 ).13  At  one  of  the  festal  seasons  the  Samaritans 
attacked  and  slaughtered  a  troop  of  Galilasan  pilgrims  at 
En-gannim,  on  the  border  between  Galilee  and  Samaria. 
In  consequence,  the  Galilaeans  armed  themselves,  and  in 
conjunction  with  robber  bands  raided  many  Samaritan  vil- 
lages, which  forced  Cumanus  to  appear  in  the  field  with  a 
large  body  of  troops  and  repress  the  disturbers  of  the  peace 
with  a  strong  hand.  The  Samaritans,  as  the  injured  party, 
further  appealed  their  case  to  Quadratus,  governor  of  Syria, 
who  came  and  held  hearings  both  at  Samaria  and  Lydda, 
the  adjudication  being  in  favor  of  the  plaintiffs.  Finally 
he  ordered  the  chiefs  of  the  two  parties  to  go  to  Rome  and 
lay  the  case  before  the  emperor  Claudius.  Here  the  Samari- 
tans had  the  influence  of  Cumanus,  whom  Josephus  charges 
with  having  been  corrupted  by  the  Samaritans ;  but  the  Jews 
were  backed  by  the  still  more  powerful  influence  of  the 
younger  Agrippa,  who  gained  Queen  Agrippina's  ear,  and 
thus  procured  the  emperor's  verdict  in  favor  of  the  Jews; 
he  condemned  the  Samaritans  to  death,  along  with  Celer  a 
Roman  knight  who  was  involved,  and  banished  Cumanus. 

One  other  occurrence  affecting  the  Samaritans  is  narrated 
by  Josephus.14  A  certain  Samaritan  fanatic  summoned  his 
coreligionists  to  assemble  on  Mount  Gerizim,  where  he 
would  show  them  the  sacred  vessels  which  lay  hidden  there. 
The  crowd  gathered  armed  at  a  place  called  Tirathana;15 

12  AJ  xviii,  2,  2.  For  this  religious  fellowship  between  the  two  sects, 
cf.  Chapter  X.  A  like  story  is  told  by  the  Samaritans,  how  two  Sa- 
maritans in  the  reign  of  Hadrian  (is  Herod  meant,  the  two  names  being 
confused  in  other  places?)  substituted  mice  for  the  doves  a  Jewish 
pilgrim  was  bringing  up  to  the  temple;  Lib.  Jos.  xlvii ;  Abu'l  Fath,  113. 

13  AJ  xx,  6;  BJ  ii,  12,  3. 

14  AJ  xviii,  4,  1-2. 

15  For  its  location,  see  p.  146. 


86  THE  SAMARITANS 

but  the  governor  Pilate  prevented  their  ascending  the  holy 
mountain  by  dispatching  a  large  force,  which  slew  many, 
capturing  some  who  were  subsequently  executed,  and  dis- 
persing the  rest.  The  Samaritan  magistracy  thereupon  ap- 
pealed to  Vitellius  the  governor  of  Syria  against  this  un- 
called-for barbarity,  and  the  upshot  of  the  complaint  was 
the  recall  of  Pilate  (A.  D.  36 ).16  These  several  instances 
prove  that  the  Samaritan  sect  possessed  considerable  influ- 
ence with  the  imperial  administration. 

The  tragedy  which  terminated  the  life  of  the  Jewish 
state  involved  as  well  the  northern  sect.  The  land  of  Sa- 
maria suffered  equally  with  the  other  districts  adjacent  to 
Judaea  from  the  raids  of  maddened  Jewish  bands  which 
swarmed  throughout  Palestine  to  take  the  last  reckoning 
with  the  heathen  world.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish 
war  (A.  D.  66),  Samaria-Sebaste  shared  the  fate  of  many 
a  neighboring  city,  and  was  burnt  to  the  ground,17  and  in 
general  we  have  to  suppose  that  the  fires  which  raged  in 
Judaea,  Peraea  and  Galilee  seared  the  valleys  of  Samaria, 
and  involved  its  inhabitants,  however  involuntarily,  in  the 
horrors  of  that  war  of  Armageddon. 

There  is  one  incident  of  this  calamitous  time  which  is 
significant  of  the  Samaritan  spirit  in  that  age.  The  mad 
fury  of  the  Jews  infected  the  Samaritans  with  its  contagion, 
and  dragged  a  large  body  of  them,  deceived  by  apocalyptic 
frenzy,  to  a  like  destruction  with  the  Jews.  The  abstract 
of  Josephus's  narrative  is  as  follows:18  A  large  number 
of  Samaritans  assembled  on  Gerizim,  despising  the  suc- 
cesses of  the  Romans,  and  ready  for  a  fray  with  them. 
Vespasian  found  it  necessary  to  nip  this  uprising  in  the 
bud,  and  sent  his  captain  Cerealis  with  600  horse  and  3,000 
infantry  to  dislodge  the  rebels.     So  strong  were  the  latter 

16  For  the  legend  of  the  hidden  vessels,  and  for  Samaritan  Messian- 
ism,  of  which  this  event  was  a  manifestation,  see  Chap.  XII,  §§  6,  7. 
"  BJ  ii,  18,  1.  ,   , 

18  BJ  hi,  7,  32.     It  is  recorded  amidst  the  events  of  the  year  by. 


UNDER  ROMAN  RULE  TO  A.  D.  70  87 

and  so  well  intrenched  in  their  superior  position,  that  the 
Romans  could  not  attack  them.  But  nature  came  to  the 
former's  aid;  there  is  no  water  on  the  mountain,  and  it  be- 
ing midsummer,  thirst  destroyed  some  of  the  besieged  reb- 
els, and  drove  others  to  yield  themselves,  so  that  Cerealis 
felt  able  to  make  assault.  Surrounding  them,  he  first  of- 
fered amnesty;  but  the  horde  was  animated  by  the  stiff- 
necked  obstinacy  of  ancient  Israel,  and  Cerealis  proceeded  to 
the  slaughter,  mowing  down  1 1 ,600  people.  No  further  in- 
formation is  had  concerning  this  unique  uprising ;  that  it  did 
not  involve  the  whole  Samaritan  sect,  is  certain,  because 
there  was  no  necessity  for  the  Romans  to  proceed  against 
any  of  the  Samaritan  towns.  We  must  suppose  that  the 
more  fanatical  ones  of  the  sect,  filled  with  Messianic  en- 
thusiasm, were  infected  with  the  madness  of  the  Jewish  co- 
religionists;  fortunately  the  community  as  a  whole  was 
saved  from  the  destruction  which  befell  political  Judaism. 

The  round  century  between  the  beginning  of  Herod's 
grace  to  the  land  of  Samaria  down  to  the  fall  of  the  Judaean 
state  was  the  happiest  age,  we  may  assume,  that  the  Samari- 
tan sect  has  experienced  in  its  long  history.  The  land 
enjoyed  the  favor  first  of  Herod  and  then,  in  general,  of 
his  official  successors;  its  value  was  recognized,  from  the 
days  of  Herod  to  those  of  Vespasian,  as  affording  a  sure 
foothold  against  the  tumultuous  Jews.  For  the  one  time 
in  history  since  the  Persian  period,  when  the  enemies  of 
Juda  in  Samaria  persecuted  the  renascent  Jewish  state,  the 
Samaritan  community  played  a  prominent  and  influential 
part  in  politics,  often  turning  to  its  advantage  the  favorable 
prepossessions  of  the  administration.  Accordingly  we 
greatly  desiderate  more  exact  information  concerning  the 
sect  in  this  auspicious  age.  We  learn  of  a  Council  (Povkrj) 
of  the  Samaritans,19  doubtless  of  the  same  pattern  as  the 

19  AJ  xviii,  4,  2.  But  Schiirer,  GJV  ii,  152,  interprets  this  of  the 
council  of  the  district.     For  the  functions  of  the  Boule,  see  ibid.,  p.  176. 


gg  THE  SAMARITANS 

Jewish  Sanhedrin,  and  accorded  much  the  same  rights  over 
the  spiritual  and  social  life  of  its  community.     The  reten- 
tion of  the  ancient  boundaries  between  Juda  and  Samaria 
indicates    the   perpetuation    of   an    ecclesiastical   territorial 
jurisdiction  for  the  Samaritans.     The  Talmud  makes  pro- 
vision for  Jews  living  in  Samaria  who  had  to  pay  tithes  to 
the  Samaritan  hierarchy.20     As  for  the  political  adminis- 
tration, Josephus  asserts  that  there  were  garrisons  placed 
throughout  the  land,21   and  that  also  upon  extraordinary 
occasions  the  government  called  out  the  native  element  and 
armed  them  as  a  militia,  as  in  the  case  of  the  conflict  be- 
tween the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews  under  Cumanus.         I  he 
franchises  of  the  Samaritans  may  not  have  been  as  exten- 
sive as  those  of  the  Jews,  but  it  would  appear  that  while 
the  empire  made  no  confusion  between  the  two  sects,  their 
privileges  were  much  the  same.     Samaritanism  was  with- 
out doubt  a  religio  licita,  with  a  recognized  ecclesiastical 

'NTanswer  can  be  given  to  the  query  concerning  the  con- 
dition of  the  cult  upon  Gerizim;  the  historical  evidence  has 
only  the  negative  result  that  since  Hyrcanus's  destruction 
of  the  Samaritan  temple  there  is  no  testimony  to  its  re- 
building. Juynboll  argues  23  that  Herod  could  not  have 
rebuilt  the  temple  for  fear  of  the  Jews;  that  no  record 
exists  of  any  such  bounty  on  his  part  would  support  this 
theory  Yet  it  seems  strange  that  the  Samaritans  in  this 
Are  of  Favor  did  not  resume  their  cult  with  fitting  sur- 
roundings. We  may  well  think  that  when  ^  Samaritan 
woman  argued  with  Jesus  concerning  the  sanctity  of  this 
mountain,^  she  pointed  to  some  edifice  crowning  the  sum- 
mit (/«.  4)-24 

20  See  below,  p-   183- 

21  BJ  iii,  7,  32- 

22  AJ  xx,  6,  i. 

ST&re^itSater  evidence  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  Samari- 


A  Coin  of  "  Flavia  Neapolis." 
Of  the  reign  of  Volusian,  whose  head  appears  on  the  reverse. 

Through  courtesy  of  the   British   Museum. 


A  Medal  of  "  Flavia  Neapolis  of  Palestinian  Syria." 

The  reverse  bears  the  legend,  in  Greek,  "  Antoninus,  Augustus,  Pius,  Emper- 
or, Caesar."  Gerizim  is  here  represented,  and  in  the  foreground  probably  the 
temple  of  Jupiter  with  the  stairs  leading  down  to  Neapolis  (referred  to  by  the 
Bordeaux  Pilgrim :  ibi  ascenduntur  usque  ad  summum  montem  gradus  num. 
CCC).  in  the  background  above  appears  probably  the  Pagan  sanctuaiy  which 
once  crowned  Gerizim's  top.  This  medal  is  in  the  Museum  of  the  Royal 
Library,  Paris,  and  is   reproduced  from   a  cut  in   Barges,   Les  Samaritaius. 


FROM  A.  D.  70  TO  CONSTANTINE  89 


§2.       FROM  THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  JERUSALEM  TO  THE  CHRIS- 
TIANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE.25 

One  permanent  result  of  interest  to  the  sect  of  the  Samari- 
tans came  from  Vespasian's  presence  in  the  land.  It  is  rea- 
sonably certain  that  this  emperor  built  the  modern  Shechem, 
the  elder  city  having  lain  farther  to  the  east ;  his  foundation 
he  called  Neapolis,  "  New-City,"  or  more  fully  and  as  it  ap- 
pears on  the  coins,  Flavia  Neapolis,  after  the  conqueror's 
family-name.20  From  its  calamity  in  the  Jewish  War  the 
city  of  Samaria  never  recovered;  in  the  IVth  Century  it 
was  no  longer  one  of  the  important  cities  of  Palestine,  and 
soon  fell  to  the  rank  of  a  village.27  Neapolis  rapidly 
forged  ahead  of  the  old  capital,  and  is  spoken  of  in  the  IVth 
Century  as  one  of  the  greatest  cities  in  Palestine.28  This 
new  creation  brought  wealth  and  prestige  to  the  centre 
of  the  Samaritan  sect,  which  by  the  IVth  Century  seems  to 
have  entirely  abandoned  the  elder  Shechem ;  but  the  change 
was  fraught  with  danger  to  that  community,  for  the  coloni- 
zation of  a  Pagan  metropolis  in  their  midst  contributed 
to  the  fanatical  exasperation  of  the  Samaritans  against  the 
Romans,  which  ultimately  brought  upon  them  the  same  ruin 
that  had  befallen  Jerusalem. 

After  the  age  of  the  great  Jewish  War  there  exists  a 

tan  temple;  see  note  102.  For  the  Samaritan  traditions  concerning  its 
site,  see  Chap.  III.  Epiphanius,  Hares,  lxxx,  1  (Migne,  xlii,  757),  de- 
scribes a  synagogue  (Proseuche)  at  Shechem  that  was  open  to  the 
heavens.  This  may  have  been  the  House  of  God  in  which  the  Samari- 
tans performed  their  sacrifices  when  restrained  from  Gerizim.  For 
the  passage,  see  Schiirer,  GJV  ii,  447.  On  the  temple,  cf.  Chap.  VI, 
note  102. 

25  Add  to  authorities  previously  mentioned,  Gratz,  Geschichte  der 
Juden,  iv. 

26  For  the  original  location  of  Shechem,  see  above,  p.  19.  The  fact 
that  Vespasian  founded  Neapolis  is  not  directly  affirmed  by  ancient 
authorities,  but  is  now  generally  accepted.  See  Valesius  to  Eusebius, 
Hist,  eccles.  iv,  12;  Juynboll,  Hist.  Sam.  118;  Schiirer,  GJV  i,  650. 

^  GJV  ii,  153- 

28  Ammianus  Marccllinus,  xiv,  8,  11  (GJV  i,  650).  For  the  coins  of 
the  city,  see  Eckhel,  Doctrina  nummorum,  iii,  434;  Mionnet,  Descrip- 


90  THE  SAMARITANS 

long  lacuna  in  Samaritan  history,  extending  to  the  reign 
of  Hadrian,  (i  17-138).     When  the  sect  reappears  it,  too, 
is  involved  in  the  great  conflict  between  State  and  Church 
which  began  with  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  terminated  in 
the  triumph  of  Christianity.     According  to  Spartianus  the 
outbreak  of  the  war  of  Bar-Kokeba  (132-135)  was  due  t0 
Hadrian's  prohibition  of  circumcision  to  the  Jews.29     The 
worth  of  this  statement  has  been  much  disputed ;  it  is  cer- 
tain, however  that   Hadrian  interdicted  castration,   under 
which  head  circumcision  might  be  included,  while  there  is 
some  slight  evidence  that  circumcision  was  prohibited  to  the 
Arabians.     If  now,  with  Schiirer,30  the  motive  assigned  to 
the  outbreak  by  Spartianus  is  to  be  accepted,  we  are  in  a  po- 
sition to  explain  how  it  is  that  from  this  time  on  the  Samar- 
itans were  involved  in  the  disasters  of  the  Jews.     Prac- 
tising Jewish  rites  which  now  fell  under  the  ban  of  the  em- 
pire, the  former  came  to  suffer  under  the  legal  penalties 
which  fell  upon  the  latter.     And  so  it  is  that  Hadrian's 
memory  is  bitterly  preserved  by  the  Samaritan  chronicles  as 
the  first  Pagan  ruler  who  persecuted  the  Samaritan  religion. 
Nevertheless  reliable  Samaritan  data  concerning  the  Ha- 
drianic  period  are  most  scanty,  and  at  the  same  time  intoler- 
ably mixed  up  with  prosaic  romancings.31     In  the  first  place 
there  is  a  recollection  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Hadrian ; 

Hon  des  mcdaillcs  antiques,  v,  500,  $1$;  Supplcm.  yiii,  346.  Head, 
Historia  numorum,  678,  thus  briefly  describes  the  coinage:  there 
are  two  principal  types— (a)  representation  of  Mount  Genzim  with 
two  summits,  on  one  of  which  is  the  temple  of  Zeus,  approached  by  a 
flight  of  cteps  —  and  on  the  other  a  small  edifice  or  altar  of  somewhat 
uncertain  form;  (0)  simulacrum  of  a  goddess  resembling  the  Ephesian 
Artemis  standing  between  two  humped  bulls ;  she  usually  holds  in  one 
hand  a  whip,  and  in  the  other  ears  of  corn.  Among  the  other  types 
are  Serapis,  Asklepios,  Apollo,  etc."  The  coins  of  the  imperial  city 
are  found  from  Titus  to  Maximums,  and  of  the  imperial  colony  from 
Philip  I.  to  Volusian,  the  colony  having  been  established  by  Septimius 
Severus. 

29  Vita  Hadriani,  14.  ,    ,  ...... 

30  GJV  i   674,  where  a  full  discussion  of  the  question  is  to  be  found, 
si  Lit    Jos   c.  xlvii;  Abu  I  Fath,  113-117;  Chron.  Adler,  44-48. 


FROM  A.  D.  70  TO  CONSTANTINE  91 

in  this  the  Samaritan  chronicles  are  opposed  to  the  view 
which  now  largely  prevails  that  Bar-Kokeba  did  not  hold 
Jerusalem.32  Subsequently,  according  to  the  Samaritan 
chronicles,  Hadrian  appeared  at  Neapolis.  He  brought 
thither  the  great  bronze  gates  of  the  Jerusalem  temple,  and 
affixed  them  to  the  temple  he  built  upon  Gerizim.33  After 
his  departure,  the  Samaritans  purified  with  fire  the  places 
he  had  defiled,34  which  action  gave  opportunity  to  the  Jews 
to  bring  malicious  accusation  against  them ;  thereupon  he 
gave  orders  to  "  kill  every  circumcised  man,"  and  also  in- 
terdicted "  ablutions  and  sabbaths  and  feasts."  In  these 
traditions  of  the  imperial  visit  to  Shechem  there  is  con- 
siderable historic  deposit,  especially  in  regard  to  Hadrian's 
application  of  his  prohibition  of  circumcision  to  the  Samari- 
tans. It  is  also  on  record  that  this  emperor  built  a  temple 
to  the  Most   High  Jupiter  on  Gerizim  above  Neapolis.35 

32  See  Schiirer,  GJV  i,  685.  The  Samaritan  chronicles  introduce  a 
long  story  concerning  two  Samaritan  youths,  Ephraim  and  Manasse 
(notice  the  artificial  names!),  who,  having  been  imprisoned  in  Jerusa- 
lem for  playing  a  sacrilegious  trick  upon  a  Jew  (see  above,  note  12), 
assisted  Hadrian  to  capture  the  city.  With  this  story  may  be  com- 
pared the  Jewish  tradition  that  the  Samaritans  acted  hostilely  towards 
the  Jews  in  their  desire  to  rebuild  the  temple  at  this  time  (Bereshit 
Rabba.  lxiv;  text  and  translation  given  in  Derenbourg,  Histoire  de  la 
Palestine,  416).  But  it  may  be  questioned  whether  this  reference  to 
a  siege  of  Jerusalem  and  the  hostility  evinced  by  the  Samaritans  to 
the  Jews  do  not  rather  refer  to  the  siege  by  Vespasian  and  Titus, 
which  later  tradition  has  confounded  with  Hadrian's  operations.  The 
Samaritan  legend  has  also  the  malicious  story  that  after  his  capture 
of  the  city,  Hadrian  pressed  into  the  Temple  and  there  found  images, 
whereupon  he  convicted  the  highpriest  of  practising  idolatry.  This 
doubtless  has  reference  to  the  cherubim,  etc.,  and  probably  the  Samari- 
tans, with  their  far  plainer  cult,  often  found  fault  with  the  Jews  for 
their  more  ornate  ritual.  The  legend  is  the  counterblast,  of  course,  to 
that  of  the  Jews  that  the  Samaritans  worshipped  a  bird,  and  what  not, 
on  Mount  Gerizim.  There  is  also  a  Rabbinic  tradition  concerning  the 
part  played  by  the  Samaritans  in  the  fall  of  Bar-Kokeba's  fortress  of 
Bettar ;  see  Derenbourg,  op.  cit.  433. 

33  For  a  further  reference  to  these  gates,  see  below,  p.  108. 

34  For  this  practice,  see  Additional  Note  C. 

35  Dio  Cassius,  xv,  12 ;  the  Neapolitan  Marinus,  quoted  by  Damas- 
cius,  in  Photius,  Bibliotheca,  Geneva,  161 1,  1055!  The  coins  of  Neapo- 
lis represent  this  temple. 


92  THE  SAMARITANS 

The  erection  of  this  new  Pagan  fane  excited  the  passions 
of  the  Samaritans,  and  the  consequent  excesses  brought  upon 
them  the  emperor's  chastisement.  The  Chronicle  Adler  as- 
cribes the  outrage  only  to  "  some  foolish  people  of  the 
Samaritans."36 

One  other  grievous  calamity  is  ascribed  to  the  days  of 
Hadrian,  the  destruction  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Samari- 
tans.37 From  this  catastrophe,  it  is  stated,  were  saved  only 
the  book  of  the  Law  and  that  of  the  succession  of  the  priests. 
It  is  true  that  Abu'l  Fath3S  ascribes  a  like  calamity  to  the 
reign  of  Commodus,  fifty  years  later,  and  because  of  the 
chronological  distortion  of  the  Samaritan  data  it  is  impos- 
sible to  make  sure  of  the  exact  date.  That  however  some 
such  calamity  occurred  in  this  century  is  corroborated  by 
the  fact  that  only  since  then  do  we  find  in  the  Samaritan 
chronicles  anything  like  independent  data.  That  before 
this  period  Samaritan  culture  possessed  its  literature  is  in- 
dubitable, so  that  we  can  best  ascribe  the  almost  utter  ab- 
sence of  original  knowledge  of  the  history  before  Hadrian 
to  the  destruction  wrought  by  the  Romans  for  the  rebel- 
liousness of  the  sect.39 

36  Clermont-Ganneau,  in  a  review  of  Adler  and  Seligsohn's  Une 
Nouvelle  Chronique  Samaritaine  (Journal  des  Savants,  ii,  34),  has 
made  some  interesting  archaeological  notes  upon  the  Samaritan  chroni- 
cles, some  of  which  may  be  pertinently  referred  to  here.  He  would 
hold  it  possible  that  the  bronze  gates  carried  off  to  Samaria  by  Hadrian 
are  the  gates  of  Nicanor  (cf.  his  Recueil  d'Archcologic  oricntale,  v, 
334).  Clermont-Ganneau  also  maintains  that  the  object  of  the  cult 
established  by  Hadrian  on  Gerizim  was  Serapis,  Jupiter  Serapis  appear- 
ing frequently  on  the  coins  of  Neapolis ;  in  this  view  he  opposes  that 
of  Adler  and  Seligsohn,  who  think  of  Jupiter  Sospes  (compare  above, 
P- 77),  and  Juynboll  (Lib.  Jos.  334),  who  would  correct  the  text  to 
make  it  read  Cccsar.  The  Samaritan  reading  is  uncertain :  Lib  Jos. 
saqaras,  Abu'l  Fath,  sapis,  sipas ;  Chron.  Adler,  sapis.  In  comment 
upon  the  prohibition  of  lustral  baths,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  a  similar 
interdict  was  issued  by  the  emperor  Verus  in  the  same  century  against 
the  purifications  of  Jewish  women ;  see  Gratz,  op.  cit.  iv,  208. 

37  Lib.  Jos.  xlvii,  end. 

38  P.  120,  10;  cf.  p.  118,  17. 

39  The  Samaritan  chronicles  state  that  Hadrian  had  a  Samaritan 
wife  on  whose  account  he  made  an  edict  that  no  Jew  should  dwell  in 


FROM  A.  D.  70  TO  CONSTANTINE  93 

For  the  Antonines,  Abu'l  Fath  records  an  Antoninus, 
who  was  "  a  friend  of  the  Samaritans,  and  studied  the  Law 
both  Hebrew  and  Targum,  and  acted  according  to  its  pre- 
scriptions; he  lavished  his  generosity  upon  the  world,  and 
gave  gold  and  silver  to  the  poor,  and  never  ceased  reading 
the  Law  night  and  day.  And  the  Samaritans  were  in  his 
time  in  the  same  condition  as  they  enjoyed  in  the  days  of 
Joshua."40  Now  it  was  Antoninus  Pius  (138-161)  who 
gained  the  gratitude  of  the  Jews  for  removing  the  imperial 
ban  that  lay  against  their  practice  of  circumcision.41  But 
if  a  statement  made  by  Origen  applies  to  this  earlier  period 
as  well,  then  the  Samaritans  were  not  included  in  the  fran- 
chise of  the  Jews.  That  Father  in  rebutting  Celsus's  argu- 
ment that  the  Samaritans  were  persecuted  as  well  as  the 
Christians  remarks  :42  "  But  it  is  said  that  Samaritans  as 
well  are  persecuted  for  their  religion.  To  this  we  answer 
as  follows:  As  murderers,  [sicarii,  i.e.  with  reference  to 
the  Cornelian  law  Dc  sicariis,  which  punished  those  who 
practised  castration  or  circumcision  with  death],  on  ac- 
count of  circumcision,  because  they  mutilate  contrary  to  the 
established  laws  which  allow  it  to  the  Jews  alone, —  there- 
fore they  are  put  to  death."  The  Samaritan  tradition  there- 
fore appears  to  be  but  a  replica  of  the  Jewish  cycle  of  legend 
which  made  Antoninus  not  only  a  friend  of  Jewish  rabbis 
but  even  a  convert  and  a  diligent  student  of  the  Law.43 

The  next  reign  recorded  by  the  chronicles  is  that  of  Com- 

Shechem:  Abu'l  Fath,  118,  5;  Chron.  Neub.,  439;  Chron.  Adler,  48;  the 
latter  draws  the  inference  that  "  Hadrian  greatly  loved  the  Samari- 
tans " !  Evidently  there  exists  a  confusion  in  the  Samaritan  reminis- 
cence between  the  similar  names  of  Hadrian  and  Herod,  the  latter  of 
which  kings  married  a  Samaritan,  though  doubtless  Gentile,  lady ;  see 
Josephus,  AJ  xvii,  1,  3;  BJ  i,  28,  4. 

40  Abu'l  Fath,  117;  Chron.  Adler,  48. 

41  The  new  law  is  given  by  Modestinus,  Digest,  xlviii,  8,  11,  pr. 
(quoted  by  Schiirer,  GJV  i,  677). 

42  C.  Celsum,  ii,  13. 

43  For  the  Jewish  romance  concerning  Antoninos  ben  Severos,  or 
Severos  ben  Antoninos,  see  Ginzberg  in  JE,  s.  v.  Antoninus  in  the 
Talmud. 


94  THE  SAMARITANS 

modus  (180 — 92),  of  whom  a  lively  and  bitter  memory  is 
cherished.  It  is  chronicled  that  in  his  day  the  Samaritans 
were  worse  off  than  under  Hadrian ;  he  instituted  bitter  per- 
secutions, forbidding  the  reading  of  the  Law,  closing  the 
schools,  destroying  the  scholars,  compelling  the  use  of  pork, 
so  that  the  knowledge  of  the  Law  well-nigh  perished.44 
But  although  Commodus's  cruel  nature  is  notorious,  yet 
nothing  is  known  of  any  ill  treatment  on  his  part  of  the 
Israelites,  so  that  the  reference  may  rather  belong  to  the 
successor  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  Verus  Commodus.45 

For  the  reign  of  Commodus's  first  permanent  successor, 
Septimius  Se verus  ( 193-21 1),  secular  history  offers  a  few 
data  bearing  upon  our  investigation.  Syria,  including 
Palestine,  took  part  with  Severus's  rival,  Niger  Pescennius, 
upon  whose  overthrow  the  conqueror  meted  out  special  pun- 
ishment to  Neapolis;  "  he  took  away  the  right  of  citizenship 
from  the  people  of  Neapolis  in  Palestine,  because  they  had 
for  a  long  time  been  in  arms  for  Niger's  cause."40  Subse- 
quently he  established  the  city  as  a  colony,  a  change  which 
may  have  involved  the  banishment  of  many  of  the  original 
citizens.47  Jerome  also  notes  in  his  chronology  for  the  fifth 
year  of  this  emperor  a  war  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Samaritans  (Judaicum  et  Samaritanum  bellum  motum)  ; 
Abu'l  Faraj,  who  places  the  event  in  the  first  year  of  the 
reign,  describes  it  as  a  great  war,  a  battle  being  fought  in 
which  many  were  killed  on  both  sides.48  Subsequently 
however  the  emperor  "  remitted  the  penalties  which  the 
Palestinians  had  incurred  on  account  of  Niger,"  and  he  es- 
tablished  "  many  laws    for   the   Palestinians."     But   apart 

"Abu'l  Fath,  1 18-122;  Chron.  Adler,  80. 

45  For  his  treatment  of  the  Jews,  see  Gratz,  op.  tit.  iv,  207. 

48  Spartianus,  Severus,  9. 

47  Ulpian,  Corp.  juris  digest  1,  15,  1,  §  7.  Gratz  has  "  Sebaste," 
op.  tit.  iv,  226. 

48  Abu'l  Faraj  (Gregory  Bar-Hebraeus),  Historia  dynastiarum,  ed. 
Pococke,  p.  125  (tr.  79).  Dio  Cassius,  lxxiv,  2,  tells  a  romantic  story 
of  one  "  Claudius,  a  bandit,  who  had  overrun  Judaea  and  Palestine." 


FROM  A.  D.  70  TO  CONSTANTINE  95 

from  this  restoration  to  civil  rights,  the  emperor  took  action 
in  202  toward  repressing  the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  latter  dismaying  the  administration.49 
As  the  proof  of  Jewish  membership  and  conversion  was 
circumcision,  the  Samaritans  must  have  been  included  under 
the  same  proscription. 

Abu'l  Fath  preserves  a  fairly  accurate  reflection  of  this 
reign.50  Severus  is  described  as  offering  the  highpriest 
Akbun  official  honor  if  he  will  worship  the  idols  and  the 
imperial  statute;  Akbun  refusing,  the  emperor's  advisers  de- 
mand the  destruction  of  the  community.  To  this  Severus 
objects  on  the  ground  that  they  worship  the  greatest  God 
of  all,  and  that  it  will  do  no  good  to  force  them.  The 
officials  then  obtain  the  right  of  espionage  over  the  Samari- 
tans to  hinder  them  from  circumcision  and  purifications,51 
and  also  to  refuse  the  privilege  to  rear  altars  in  their  midst. 
There  is  added  the  note  that  the  emperor  laid  upon  the  com- 
munity a  tax  for  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath ;  this  may 
have  been  nothing  else  than  some  case  of  local  official  ex- 
tortion. 

The  next  reign  recorded  by  the  Samaritan  chroniclers  is 
that  of  Alexander  Severus  ( 222-235 ).52  But  the  local 
historians  seem  to  have  utterly  missed  the  mark  concern- 
ing this  ruler.  He  is  depicted  as  worse  than  Commodus ; 
he  placed  a  price  upon  the  heads  of  Samaritans,53  syna- 
gogues and  schools  were  destroyed,  doctors  of  the  Law  and 
youths  were  slain.  Yet  above  all  the  emperors  Alexander 
Severus  is  noted  for  his  humanity  and  liberality.54  We  are 
accordingly  forced  to  look  for  some  other  object  of  the 

49  Spartianus,  Severus,  cc.  14,  17. 

50  p     j23# 

51  Cf.  above,  note  36. 

52  Abu'l  Fath,  124;  Chron.  Adler,  50. 

53  This  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  Abu'l  Fath,  124,  line  12,  and 
the  parallel  in  Chron.  Adler;  see  the  editor's  note  to  latter. 

54  He  introduced  both  Abraham  and  Jesus  into  his  pantheon,  and 
was  accustomed  often  to  quote  the  Golden  Rule  of  Hillel  (not  the  form 


96  THE  SAMARITANS 

Samaritan  denunciation.  Juynboll  suggests  Heliogabulus 
(218-222)  ;55  yet  this  blasphemous  monarch  had  an  eclectic 
interest  in  all  cults,  while  his  concubine  Severina  was  favor- 
ably disposed  to  Christianity.  But  there  may  be  suggested 
the  identification  with  Caracalla  (21 1-2 17),  who  styled 
himself  Alexander  in  admiration  of  the  great  conqueror,  by 
which  name  he  was  known  upon  medals.56  He  spent  much 
of  his  time  in  the  Orient,  where  his  chosen  surname  may 
have  come  into  common  use,  and  then  later  have  been  con- 
fused with  that  of  the  noble  and  far  more  famous  Alexander 
Severus. 

One  important  event  of  the  reign  of  Alexander  Severus 
is  recorded  by  the  Samaritan  chroniclers,  the  rise  of  the 
Sassanide  kingdom  of  Persia.57  To  this  occurrence  is  at- 
tached the  story  of  an  embassy  sent  to  the  new  Persian  king 
to  supplicate  favor  for  the  Samaritans;  by  their  witty  wis- 
dom they  gain  his  favor.  This  story  has  its  parallel  in  a 
later  incident;58  in  general  the  Samaritans  appear  as  abet- 
tors cf  the  Sassanian  attacks  against  the  empire. 

For  the  remainder  of  the  Pagan  empire  the  Samaritans 
record  but  three  emperors.  Of  these  it  is  stated  that  Gor- 
dianus  (238-244)  gave  permission  to  the  Jews  to  rebuild 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  but  that  their  efforts  were  frus- 
trated by  a  mighty  storm,59 —  a  replica  of  the  Christian 
legend  assigned  to  Julian's  reign.     Philip  the  Arab  (244- 

given  by  Christ,  as  often  erroneously  repeated)  :  Quod  tibi  fieri  non 
vis,  alteri  ne  feceris ;  Lampridius,  Alexander  Severus,  cc.  29,  51.  He 
is  also  said  to  have  been  a  patron  of  Origen. 

55  Op.  cit.  139.  According  to  Lampridius,  Hcliogabalus,  3,  this  em- 
peror desired  to  centralize  the  cults  of  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  and 
also  of  the  Christians  at  his  temple  on  the  Palatine. 

56  See  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ed.  Bury,  i, 
138.  .      , 

57  Abu' I  Fath,  122;  Chron.  Adler,  50.  These  place  the  event  in  the 
10th  year  of  Commodus,  but  the  former  (122,  line  8)  also  dates  it  at 
545  years  from  Alexander  the  Great,  which  is  correct  within  two  years. 

58  See  p.  117. 
50Aba'l  Fath,  139. 


FROM  A.  D.  70  TO  CONSTANTINE  97 

249)  is  mentioned.60  Finally  Decius  (249-252),  is  re- 
corded as  even  worse  than  Severus,  and  a  story  is  told  of 
the  cruel  martyrdom  by  his  deputy  Rakus  of  a  Samaritan 
woman  who  refused  to  worship  the  idols.61 

This  deficiency  of  information  in  the  Samaritan  sources 
is  eked  out  by  one  datum  from  Jewish  tradition.  A  Tal- 
mudic  passage  relates  that  "  when  Diocletian  the  king  came 
hither,  he  decreed  that  all  the  peoples  should  offer  libation, 
except  the  Jews;  and  the  Samaritans  offered  libations."Gla 
This  statement,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  must  be  a  libel, 
but  it  is  doubtless  true  that  while  the  Jews,  through  their  in- 
fluence and  ancient  prestige,  obtained  exemption  from  the 
drastic  laws  of  revived  heathenism,  which  were  especially 
directed  against  the  Christians,  the  Samaritans  did  not  share 
the  like  good  fortune.62 

Such  is  an  enumeration  of  the  data  of  Samaritan  history 
for  the  age  between  70  and  323  A.  C.  Further  than  this 
we  can  only  picture  in  imagination  the  calamities  which 
racked  the  falling  empire,  and  which  in  particular  brought 
havoc  and  desolation  to  Palestine ;  rival  emperors,  insurgent 
governors,  the  wars  with  Parthians  and  Sassanians,  all 
heaped  their  evils  upon  the  devoted  land,  while  within  its 
borders  the  general  civic  disorder  gave  scope,  under  the 
cover  of  repressive  laws,  to  the  exactions  of  wilful  and  cove- 
tous officials,  who  treated  the  Samaritan  sect,  so  outlandish 
to  Pagan  eyes,  with  even  more  despite  than  they  did  the 
rest  of  their  unfortunate  subjects.  The  community  was 
more  than  decimated,  its  riches  looted,  its  culture  almost 

60  Abu'l  Fath,  145  ;  Chron.  Adler,  61.  For  the  rigor  of  the  law  against 
Samaritan  circumcision,  in  this  reign,  as  we  saw  above,  Origen  is  wit- 
ness C.  Celsum  ii,  13,  which  was  composed  under  this  monarch ;  Euse- 
bius,  Hist,  ecclcs.  vi,  cc.  34,  36. 

61  Abu'l  Fath  148;  Chron.  Adlcr,  63. 

61a  Ab.  Zara  Jer.  44A.     Cf.  Gratz,  op.  cit.  iv,  302. 

62  Is  Decius  in  the  Samaritan  chronicles  an  error  (simple  enough  in 
the  Arabic  script)  for  Diocletian?  At  the  same  time  Decius,  who  was 
the  first  systematic  persecutor  of  the  Christians,  may  have  included  the 
Samaritans  in  his  proscriptions. 

7 


98  THE  SAMARITANS 

exterminated,  as  indeed  the  Samaritans  record.  It  pos- 
sessed no  friends  in  the  outside  world  apart  from  the  mem- 
bers of  scattered  synagogues  and  banking-houses,  but  these 
never  seem  to  have  been  able  to  give  much  support  to  the 
home-church ;  Judaism  could  survive  even  if  not  a  Jew  was 
left  in  the  Holy  Land,  for  the  vast  and  well-organized 
Diaspora  in  Mesopotamia  gave  that  church  a  powerful  back- 
ing in  trouble  and  a  sure  place  of  refuge.  But  the  Samari- 
tans possessed  no  like  material  and  political  advantages. 
Only  the  obstinacy  of  their  religion  saved  them  through 
these  and  the  succeeding  centuries  of  chaos,  and  in  view 
of  this  persistence  we  dare  not  deny  them  credit  for  a  true 
religious  faith.  With  the  Christianization  of  the  empire, 
when  at  last  the  related  church  of  the  Nazarenes,  with  whom 
they  had  shared  the  Pagan  persecutions,  came  to  the  as- 
cendancy, we  might  expect  the  Shechemites  to  find  respite 
under  the  rule  of  the  followers  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  But 
a  worse  fate  pursued  them  under  Christian  dominion  than 
under  Pagan.  Whatever  rights  had  been  theirs,  the  be- 
quest of  the  ancient  humanity  of  Rome,  were  now  with- 
drawn to  satisfy  the  persecuting  spirit  of  triumphant  Chris- 
tendom, which  had  absorbed  from  Paganism  the  lesson,  op- 
posite to  its  Master's,  to  treat  like  with  like,  and  to  bruise 
the  broken  reed. 

§3.      FROM    THE   REIGN    OF   CONSTANTINE   TO   THE   RISE  OF 

ISLAM.63 

For  this  period  we  possess,  in  comparison  with  the  meagre 
records  of  other  ages,  an  extensive  amount  of  information 
for  the  Samaritan  sect.  Except  for  the  last  three  genera- 
tions of  the  Pagan  empire,  which  were  marked  by  religious 
persecutions,  Rome  in  general  had  troubled  herself  little,  ex- 
cept on  political  grounds,  over  the  religion  of  her  subjects. 

63  Cf.  especially  the  works  of  Juynboll,  Gratz,  and  Appel,  as  above. 


w 
a 

u 
w 
W 
to 


a 
o 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  99 

But  with  the  ascendancy  of  the  Christian  Church,  religion 
became  one  of  the  chief  factors  in  the  politics  and  history  of 
the  empire.  Christian  fanaticism  at  once  began  to  exhibit 
itself,  partly  in  the  mutual  persecutions  of  Christian  sects, 
partly  in  the  persecution  and  legal  ostracism  of  all  who  did 
not  bear  the  name  of  Christ.  Among  these  the  Pagans 
were  the  chief  objects  of  the  jealousy  of  militant  Christen- 
dom, but  the  sects  so  nearly  related  to  Christianity,  the 
Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  who  worshipped  the  same  One 
God,  suffered  the  more  intense  spite  of  the  Church.  More- 
-  over,  as  the  conscious  successors  of  the  Jewish  Church,  the 
malevolence  of  the  Christians  followed  the  traditions  of 
Judaism  in  the  despite  of  the  Samaritans,  so  that  the  latter 
suffered  a  twofold  share  of  persecution.  Accordingly  we 
find  many  laws  which,  for  the  first  time  in  Roman  juris- 
prudence, name  the  Samaritans,  while  the  Christian  annal- 
ists have  abundant  occasion  to  mention  the  sect.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Samaritan  records  are  fuller  and  more  cor- 
rect for  this  than  any  other  period ;  the  race  has  preserved 
the  bitter  memory  that  its  undoing  came  at  the  hands  not 
of  Pagan  or  Arab  but  of  the  Christian.  On  a  small  scale 
the  story  of  the  fanatical  desperation  which  centuries  earlier 
had  destroyed  the  Jewish  nation  was  now  re-enacted  in 
Samaria,  and  the  Christian  dominion  in  Palestine  stands 
branded  with  cruel  oppressions  of  the  despised  sect  and  with 
the  responsibility  for  ruthless  and  brutal  revolts  raised  by 
the  latter.  For  these  three  centuries  Samaritan  history 
shares  in  the  horrors  of  the  fall  of  the  Roman  empire  in  the 
Orient,  and  the  only  relief  in  the  cruel  story  is  found  in  the 
brief  renascence  of  the  sect  which  occurred  in  the  IVth 
Century. 

The  age  of  Constantine  (d.  337)  was  one  of  true  tolera- 
tion. That  great  statesman  cared  more  for  the  unity  of  his 
empire  than  for  the  strife  of  sects  which  only  involved  civil 
commotion  and  ruin.     Several  of  his  laws  give  privileges 


ioo  THE  SAMARITANS 

to  the  Jews,  in  which  the  Samaritans  may  have  been  in- 
cluded. Thus  the  patriarchs  and  elders  of  the  former,  like 
the  Christian  clergy,  were  exempted  from  all  public  func- 
tions.64 At  the  same  time  the  emperor  found  it  necessary 
to  repress  the  aggressive  violence  of  the  Jews  against  per- 
verts, and  an  early  law  "  gives  notice  to  the  Jews  and  their 
elders  and  patriarchs  that  in  case  anyone  escapes  from  their 
barbarous  sect  and  reverences  the  Religion  of  God,  if  any 
Jew  dare,  after  the  promulgation  of  this  law,  to  attack  such 
a  one  with  stones  or  by  any  other  kind  of  mad  violence, —  a 
proceeding  which  has  come  to  our  cognizance  —  he  is  to  be 
promptly  burnt  to  death,  being  cremated  along  with  his 
abettors.  If  any  from  the  people  attaches  himself  to  their 
nefarious  sect  and  attends  their  conventicles,  he  with  them 
is  to  pay  the  fitting  penalty."65  Another  law  more  explicitly 
confiscates  the  property  of  converts  to  Judaism;66  another 
forbids  Jews  taking  slaves  from  other  cults  under  penalty 
of  the  emancipation  of  the  slave,  and  if  a  Jewish  master  cir- 
cumcise a  slave,  he  is  to  be  put  to  death.67  These  restrictive 
prescriptions  seem  to  be  renewals  of  the  earlier  ban  against 
Judaism,  and  without  doubt  included  the  Samaritans  in  their 
implication. 

But  the  sectarian  strife  which  broke  out  upon  the  council 
of  Nicaea  (325),  as  well  as  the  exasperation  of  Paganism, 
so  sharpened  Christian  fanaticism  that  persecution  became 
more  and  more  the  order  of  the  day.  Constantius  ( d.  361 ) , 
who  had  his  hands  full  enough  with  the  quarrels  of  Catholics 
and  Arians,  promulgated  an  edict  forbidding  on  peril  of 
death  the  marriage  of  Christian  women  with  Jews.68  For 
this  reign  there  is  also  evidence  concerning  the  relations  of 

6*  Codex  Theodosianus,  Lib.  xvi,  Tit.  8,  c.  2,  anno  330 ;  in  the  edition 
of  Ritter-Gothofred,  Leipzig,  1 736-1743,  vol.  vi,  240.  This  important 
Title  is  called  De  Judais,  Samaritanis,  et  Ccchcolis  (ib.  p.  234). 

65  Ibid.,  c.  1 ;  an.  3*5- 

66  Ibid.,  c.  7. 

67  Ibid.,  xvi,  9,  c.  2  (Ritter,  vi,  271). 
es  Ibid.,  xvi,  8,  c.  6. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  IOI 

Samaritans  with  the  Jews.  In  339  the  latter  raised  a  revolt 
at  Sepphoris  in  Galilee,  whence  they  are  said  to  have  "  de- 
stroyed many  Greeks  and  Samaritans  " ;  that  is,  the  raids 
were  carried  into  Samaria,  or  the  outlying  settlements  of 
Samaritans  on  the  coast  or  in  Persea.69 

To  the  reign  of  Constantius,  the  ruler  of  the  eastern  por- 
tion of  the  empire  (337-361),  in  association  with  his 
brother,  the  emperor  Constans,  is  to  be  assigned  one  anec- 
dote in  the  Samaritan  chronicles.  According  to  this  tradi- 
tion70 the  emperor  Decius  was  followed  by  Tahus,  who  pro- 
hibited the  reading  of  the  Law  and  the  observance  of  the 
rites,  his  prefect  in  Samaria  being  a  certain  Garman.  The 
anecdote  proceeds  to  relate  that  the  highpriest  Nathanael 
was  in  a  quandary  how  to  circumcise  his  eldest  son,  the  later 
famous  Baba  Rabba,  for  the  Samaritans  seem  to  have  had 
the  custom  of  performing  the  rite  before  the  community. 
At  last  he  resolved  to  have  it  performed  in  a  cave  outside 
of  the  town,  and  so  gave  the  child  to  a  servant  to  carry 
him  thither  in  a  basket,  while  the  party  was  to  follow  im- 
mediately. The  servant  was  met  by  the  prefect  and  ac- 
costed with  the  words :  "  Do  what  thou  intendest  and  fear 
not,"  and  upon  her  return,  he  again  addressed  her :  "  Bring 
him  up  in  peace,  my  child."  The  highpriest  learned  that 
the  prefect  was  aware  of  his  illegal  action,  and  full  of  fear 
plucked  up  the  courage  to  approach  him  with  a  bribe.  The 
latter  refused  it,  and  promised  on  oath  to  make  no  report 
to  the  emperor.  In  consequence  of  this  benevolence  it  be- 
came the  custom  of  the  Samaritans,  whenever  they  had 
occasion  to  circumcise  a  child  in  a  cave,  to  pray  that  "  God 
have  mercy  on  Garman,  the  Roman  prefect !  " 

Now  there  was  a  bishop  of  Neapolis  by  the  name  of  Ger- 
manus,  who  was  present  at  the  councils  of  Ancyra  and  Neo- 

69  Socrates,  Hist,  eccles.,  ii,  33;  Theophanes,  Chronographia,  61; 
Ccdrenus,  524  (the  two  latter  in  the  Corpus  scriptorum  histories  Byzan- 
tince). 

70  Lib.  Jos.  xlix;  Abu'l  Fath,  150;  Chron.  Adler,  63. 


102  THE  SAMARITANS 

Csesarea  (314),  and  of  Nicaea  (32s)-71  The  title  given 
the  governor,  qasis,  means,  in  both  Arabic  and  Syriac 
(qashshis),  an  ecclesiastical  dignitary,  as  well  as  governor. 
The  official  in  the  Samaritan  tradition  is  therefore  no  other 
than  Germanus,  the  Christian  bishop  of  Neapolis,  and  the 
emperor  Tahns  doubtless  Constantius.  We  may  assume 
that  the  stringency  of  official  measures  against  the  Samari- 
tan religion  depended  much  upon  the  zeal  of  the  ecclesi- 
astics ;  in  this  case  we  have  a  rare  and  noble  instance  of  the 
Christian  charity  of  a  bishop  of  that  age  to  the  enemies  of 
his  Church.  The  story  also  states  that  watchers  were 
appointed  to  keep  the  Samaritans  from  circumcision ;  that  is, 
the  old  law  of  Hadrian  was  now  again  set  in  force  against 
the  Samaritans.72 

This  anecdote  is  of  important  chronological  value,  for  it 
serves  to  give  the  date  for  an  episode  which  the  Samaritans 
look  back  upon  as  one  of  the  most  glorious  in  their  history. 
This  is  the  story  of  their  great  hero,  Baba  Rabba,  who  when 
a  child  was  the  unconscious  object  of  the  clemency  of  good 
bishop  Germanus.  Despite  the  arrangement  of  the  Samari- 
tan chronicles,  which  assign  Baba  Rabba  to  the  Hid  Cen- 
tury, specifically  to  the  reigns  of  Severus  and  Philip,  all  the 
sure  data  refer  his  life  to  the  mddle  of  the  IVth  Century; 
probably  he  nourished  under  the  eastern  co-emperor  Con- 
stantius.73 

It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  the  details  of  the  largely 

71  See  Reland,  Palcestina,  1009. 

72  To  Juynboll,  Lib.  Jos.  151,  belongs  the  credit  of  recognizing  the 
historic  circumstances  of  this  anecdote. 

73  The  history  is  given  at  greatest  length  in  Abu' I  Fatlt,  129-146;  in 
briefer  abstract  in  Chron.  Adlcr,  51-62;  also  in  Chron.  Neub.  440-442; 
Lib.  Jos.  xlviii-1.  The  chronology  is  fixed  by  the  references  to  Ger- 
manus and  Constantius  (Tahus),  while  the  exact  date  is  given  accord- 
ing to  several  eras  in  Chron.  Adler,  57f,  according  to  which  Baba 
"  appeared  "  in  the  655th  year  from  Alexander,  *.  e.,  A.  D.  319,  and  in 
the  308th  year  after  Jesus  Christ.  His  activity  is  said  to  have  begun 
in  his  40th  year.  The  name  Baba  Rabba,  "  the  Great  Gate,"  was  doubt- 
less a  title  of  religious  significance. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  103 

exuberant  and  absurd  story  of  the  hero.  The  residuum 
of  solid  facts  seems  to  be  as  follows :  Baba  Rabba  was  the 
eldest  son  of  the  highpriest,  and  instituted  a  great  relig- 
ious revival  and  reformation.  His  supporters  seem  to  have 
been  the  laity,  for  he  favored  the  laymen  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  priests,  establishing  a  college  of  Seven  Wise  Men, 
only  three  of  whom  were  priests,  while  laymen  seem  to  have 
been  set  in  charge  of  the  synagogues.  He  reconstituted  the 
priestly  line,  whose  pedigree  had  been  lost.  He  recovered 
what  he  could  of  the  holy  books,  and  restored  the  worship  of 
the  community,  also  building  eight  stone  synagogues.  The 
land  was  divided  for  administrative  purposes  into  twelve 
districts.74  The  oldest  stratum  of  the  story  reports  that 
Baba  Rabba  announced  that  he  did  not  intend  any  political 
revolution  in  his  reformation; 75  but  the  story  develops  into 
extravagant  accounts  of  his  successes  against  the  enemies 
of  the  Samaritans,  in  which  figures  are  used  in  truly  oriental 
style.  To  give  credit  to  the  annalist,  Abu'l  Fath  declares 
that  he  is  not  responsible  for  part  of  the  impossible  story.70 
There  is  an  account  of  a  successful  fray  with  the  Roman 
tax-gatherers,  and  also  of  an  encounter  with  Arab  invaders, 
who  seem  to  have  been  cooperating  with  the  Persian  king. 
At  the  end  of  his  life  the  hero  was  compelled  to  go  to  Con- 
stantinople, where  he  was  held  in  most  honorable  captivity 
until  his  death.  In  connection  with  this  heroic  story  we  also 
learn  that  Marka  the  great  theologian  of  the  Samaritans 
flourished  about  the  same  time,  a  generation  or  two  later 
than  Baba  Rabba,  and  this  connection  gives  us  further  val- 
uable corroboration  of  the  fact  that  in  this  century  Samari- 
tanism  enjoyed  a  renascence.77 

There  is  no  external  reference  to  this 'episode  of  Baba 
Rabba,  but  without  doubt  place  can  be  found  for  it  in  the 

74  For  these  districts,  see  below,  p.  150. 

75  Abu'l  Fath,  133. 

76  P.  139.     . 

77  See  below,  p.  294. 


104  THE  SAMARITANS 

history  of  the  IVth  Century.  The  period  of  sectarian  strife 
under  the  sons  of  Constantine  offered  an  opportunity  for  the 
recrudescence  of  the  oriental  sects.  The  follower  of  those 
princes,  the  Pagan  but  infinitely  nobler  Julian,  in  his  con- 
flict with  the  Church  showed  his  favors  to  the  Jews,  and  the 
Samaritans  may  be  considered  to  have  shared  in  his  grace. 
Valens  (364-368),  the  co-emperor  with  Valentinian  I.  in 
the  Orient,  caused  a  reaction  not  only  of  the  Arians  but 
also  of  the  other  religions  of  the  empire,  and  Cedrenus 
mentions  that  in  his  eighth  year  he  conferred  honors  on 
the  Jews.78  There  is  a  Samaritan  reminiscence  of  this 
emperor  in  the  story  of  an  appeal  made  by  the  children 
of  a  highpriest  concerning  their  patrimony  to  the  "  king 
Balsamis."  79  These  reigns  accordingly  gave  a  welcome 
breathing-space  to  the  eastern  sects,  and  in  this  period  we 
find  a  place  for  the  Samaritan  memories  of  the  glorious 
age  of  Baba  Rabba.  Yet  another  corroboration  may  be 
established  in  Abu'l  Fath's  report  of  the  war  waged  between 
"  the  king  of  Mosul,"  i.  e.,  Persia,  and  Rome  at  this  time, 
referring  perhaps  to  the  Persian  invasion  in  353,80  and 
again  in  the  note  of  the  Ishmaelite  invasion  of  Palestine, 
which  is  affirmed  by  external  authorities.81  We  possess 
therefore  in  the  Samaritan  annals  some  fairly  correct  his- 
torical traditions  for  this  period.  To  the  stimulus  of  the 
reform  and  rejuvenation  of  the  sect  under  Baba  Rabba  we 
have  to  ascribe  much  of  the  self-assertive  and  pugnacious 
patriotism  which  the  Samaritans  displayed  during  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Byzantine  age. 

Despite  his  partizan  zeal,  the  empire  gained  in  Theodosius 
I.  (379-395)    a  ruler  filled  with  the  spirit  of  Roman  law. 

78  Cedrenus,  544. 

79  Abu'l  Fath,  164.     The  Arabic  form  comes  through  the  Greek,  Bales. 

80  Ammianus,  xiv,  3;  so  Appel  suggests,  p.  74.     Or  is  it  a  reference 
to  Julian's  disastrous  campaign? 

81  Abu'l  Fath,  i36f;  cf.  Sosomenus,  vi,  38;  Socrates,  iv,  36;  Theo- 
plianes,  i,  02,  100. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  105 

Accordingly  his  attention  was  frequently  drawn  to  the  Jews 
in  regard  both  to  their  peculiar  afflictions  at  the  hand  of 
officials  and  populace,  and  also  to  their  exceptional  rights 
over  against  the  common  law  of  the  empire.  He  stoutly 
defended  the  Jews  against  the  oppression  of  governors,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  capital  condemnation  of  a  certain  Hesych- 
ius  of  consular  rank,  who  had  seized  the  papers  of  the 
Jewish  patriarch, S2  and  gave  strict  injunctions  to  restrain 
the  interference  of  mobs  with  the  rights  and  property  of 
that  race,  also  disallowing  the  inequitable  municipal  exac- 
tions often  levied  upon  them,  for  instance,  in  the  regulation 
of  the  prices  of  their  wares. S3  In  a  certain  particular  he 
maintained  their  ecclesiastical  autonomy  and  discipline  by 
protecting  their  right  of  excommunication.84  In  one  of  his 
edicts  Theodosius  includes  by  name  the  Samaritans  —  the 
first  mention  of  them  in  Roman  edicts  that  has  been  pre- 
served. The  law  reads  thus :  "  It  is  recognized  that  the 
community  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Samaritans  cannot  be 
summoned  for  navicular  duty  [i.  e.,  the  obligation  of 
furnishing  ships  for  the  state],  for  the  duty  which  appears 
to  be  enjoined  on  the  whole  body  can  obligate  no  person  in 
particular ;  hence  on  the  one  hand  those  who  are  poor  and 
engaged  in  petty  business  ought  not  to  have  to  perform  the 
duty  of  contributing  ships  to  the  state,  so  on  the  other  hand, 
those,  who  having  the  means  can  be  chosen  from  these 
bodies,  ought  not  to  be  immune  to  the  aforesaid  func- 
tion."85   The  intent  of  the  edict  is  evidently  this,  to  relieve 

82  Jerome,  De  optimo  genere  inter pretandi,  ad  Pamachium ;  ed  Migne, 
xxii,  570.     This  letter  may  not  be  genuine. 
S3Cod.  Theodos.  xvi,  8,  cc.  9,  10,  12   (Ritter,  vi,  245fT). 

84  Ibid.,  c.  8. 

85  Ibid.,  xiii,  5,  c.  18,  an.  390  (Ritter,  v,  84):  Judseorum  corpus  ac 
Samaritanorum  ad  naviculariam  functionem  non  jure  vocari  cognosci- 
tur;  quidquid  enim  universo  corpori  videtur  indici,  nullam  specialiter 
potest  obligare  personam ;  unde  sicut  inopes  vilibusque  commerciis 
occupati  navicularise  translations  munus  obire  non  debent,  ita  idoneos 
facultatibus,  qui  ex  his  corporibus  deligi  poterunt,  ad  praedictam  func- 
tionem haberi  non  ooortet  immunes. 


106  THE  SAMARITANS 

synagogal  communities  of  the  navicular  duty,  which  other- 
wise would  lie  upon  the  poor  as  well  as  the  rich  of  those 
bodies,  and  to  require  that  duty  of  those  individual  mem- 
bers whose  wealth  rendered  them  liable.  We  observe  here 
the  effort  of  the  imperial  lawyer  to  ignore  the  semi- 
autonomous  ecclesiastical  communities  with  their  ancient 
separate  privileges  and  responsibilities,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  place  all  their  members  on  the  same  footing  with 
other  citizens.86  This  law  is  of  peculiar  interest  because  of 
its  explicit  reference  to  the  Samaritans ;  we  have  also  to  in- 
fer that  all  the  legislation  applying  to  the  Jews  was  gen- 
erally construed  as  covering  the  smaller  sect.  The  law  in 
question  is  addressed  to  the  governor  of  Alexandria,  where 
there  was  an  extensive  Samaritan  community. 

Of  Theodosius's  equitable  disposition  Abu'l  Fath  reports 
what  is  doubtless  a  true  reminiscence.87  The  Romans  came 
to  Neapolis  to  keep  the  Samaritans  from  worshipping  on 
Gerizim,  but  God  put  it  in  the  heart  of  king  Theodosius 
(Tahadis)  to  drive  off  the  disturbers.  The  anecdote  is 
placed  in  the  midst  of  accounts  of  frays  between  Samaritans 
and  Christians,  which  seem  therefore  to  have  been  checked 
by  the  strong  hand  of  the  government. 

But  a  far  more  grievous  difficulty  now  assailed  the 
Samaritans  than  any  which  arose  from  the  law.  Samaria 
had  now  become  holy  ground  to  the  Christians  as  well  as 
to  the  Shechemites,  and  with  the  advent  of  the  Church  to 
empire  there  arose  the  fanatical  question  as  to  the  posses- 
sion of  the  sacred  sites,  most  of  which  the  Christians  pro- 
ceeded to  claim.  On  one  memorable  occasion  the  land  had 
been  trodden  by  the  feet  of  Christ,  and  Christian  devotion 
promptly  addressed  itself  to  the  well  by  Sychar,  where  Jesus 
taught  the  Samaritan  woman,  and  which  was  also  hoary 

80  Gratz,  op.  cit.  iv,  387,  has  misunderstood  the  implication  of  this 
law,  and  is  uncertain  whether  it  is  favorable  or  otherwise  to  the  com- 
munities concerned. 

8T  P.  IOQ. 


',    ft  •<><*  fS 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  107 

with  patriarchal  tradition  as  Jacob's  Well  —  one  of  the  few 
spots  in  Palestine  which  we  can  exactly  identify  with 
Christ's  movements.  In  the  IVth  Century  the  sacred  Well 
came  into  Christian  possession,  and  Jerome,  writing  about 
404,  records  how  the  venerable  lady  Paula  visited  the 
church  that  was  built  about  Jacob's  Well;  this  possession 
was  maintained  by  the  Christians  down  into  Muslim 
times.88 

There  was  yet  another  holy  site  not  far  off  from  the  Well 
which  also  claimed  the  interest  of  Christians.  This  was  the 
Tomb  of  Joseph,  which,  according  to  Jewish  tradition, 
attested  for  the  1st  Century  A.  C,  was  the  sepulchre  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs  or  Sons  of  Jacob.89  Jerome  reports 
that  Paula,  after  visiting  Jacob's  Well,  "turned  aside  and 
saw  the  tombs  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs."  Of  the  conflicts 
which  broke  out  over  the  possessions  of  this  site  the  Samari- 
tan chronicles  preserve  some  interesting  reminiscences,90 
these  annals  being  only  acquainted  with  the  tradition  con- 
cerning Joseph,  not  with  that  of  the  Twelve.  They  report, 
in  Abu' I  Fath,  just  before  the  mention  of  Theodosius,  that 
the  Christians  came  and  attempted  to  carry  off  Joseph's 
bones  in  order  to  transport  them  to  their  own  cities.  Their 
undertaking  was  frustrated  by  miracles,  including  a  won- 
drous light  and  cloud,  and  finally  they  contented  themselves 
with  building  over  the  spot  a  church.  This  was  destroyed 
by  the  Samaritans,  and  the  community  bought  itself  off 
from  punishment  only  through  payment  of  a  fine.  There- 
upon they  made  the  tomb  inaccessible  for  all  time.  In 
matter  of  fact  no  ancient  remains  are  found  on  the  spot, 

88  Jerome,  Epitaphium  Paula,  ed.  Migne,  xxii,  888.  The  pilgrims 
Antoninus  Martyr  (of  Plaisance),  Arnulf,  Willibald,  mention  the 
church.  The  Samaritans  appear  now  to  have  lost  all  sense  of  the 
sanctity  of  the  spot,  although  acquainted  with  the  tradition.  For  these 
references  see  Reland,  op.  cit.  1008;  Robinson,  BR  iii,  no;  and  Guerin, 
op.  cit.  i,  380,  who  gives  the  references  in  full. 

89  Acts,  7,  16;  see  J.  Lightfoot,  ad  loc,  and  commentaries. 

90  Abu' I  Fath,  169;  Chron.  Adlcr,  74. 


108  THE  SAMARITANS 

the  present  structure  covering  the  site  being  quite  mod- 
ern.91 

In  this  connection  may  be  mentioned  yet  another  anec- 
dote which  may  be  placed  in  the  IVth  Century.02  The 
highpriest  built  a  large  synagogue,  and  furnished  it  with 
the  gates  which  had  decorated  Hadrian's  temple  on  Gerizim, 
and  which  that  monarch  had  brought  from  Jerusalem.93 
For  this  theft  he  was  called  into  account  by  "  king  Saqa- 
fatus,"  with  whom  he  finally  settled  by  a  heavy  payment. 
What  is  meant  by  the  barbarous  name  has  not  been  made 
out.94  It  may  be  conjectured  that  this  event  took  place 
shortly  after  the  fall  of  Paganism,  when  the  Samaritans 
ventured  to  spoil  the  heathen  shrines  for  their  own 
advantage.95 

The  evil  conditions  of  the  Israelite  sects  increased  in  the 
Vth  Century.  For  the  bloody  persecutions  of  the  Jews, 
which  were  led  by  the  clergy  and  followed  with  desperate 
uprisings  on  the  part  of  the  victims,  reference  may  be  made 
to  the  general  histories.90  The  western  emperor  Honorius 
(395-423)  had  occasion  to  include  the  Samaritans  in  an 
edict  concerning  the  Jews :  "  The  Jews  and  Samaritans, 
who  flatter  themselves  to  have  the  privileges  of  being  royal 
agents  [informers],  are  to  be  deprived  of  all  such  service."97 

Equally  with  Honorius  his  second  colleague  in  the  East, 

91  Baedeker,  225. 

92  Abu' 7  Fath,  166;  Chron.  Adler,  J2.  For  a  discussion  see  Clermont- 
Ganneau,  Journal  des  Savants,  ii,  43. 

93  See  above,  p.  91. 

94Vilmar,  Abu'l  Fath,  p.  lxxiii,  thinks  of  iiriaKoiros.  Clermont- 
Ganneau  rejects  this  identification.  I  would  suggest  <7vno<pai>TTis,  i.  e., 
the  imperial  informer,  the  role  which  was  taken  by  the  Agens  hi  rebus. 
The  word  occurs  in  Rabbinic;  see  Jastrow,  Dictionary,  s.  v.  «]pD- 

95  The  Samaritan  building  is  said  to  have  been  a  synagogue,  but  this 
may  have  been  an  attempt  to  rebuild  the  Samaritan  temple. 

90  E.  g.  Gratz,  op.  cit.  iv,  389. 

97  Cod.  Theodos.  xvi,  8,  c.  16,  an.  404  (Ritter  vi,  254):  Iudsos  et 
Samaritanos,  qui  sibi  agentium  in  rebus  privilegio  blandiuntur,  omni 
militia  privandos  esse  censemns.  However  the  administration  of  Ar- 
cadius,  the  co-emperor  in  the  East  was  very  favorable  to  the  Jews; 
Griitz,  op.  cit.  iv,  387. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  1 09 

Theodosius  II.  (408-450),  was  intent  upon  the  Christian- 
ization  of  the  empire.  It  is  significant  that  in  his  reign  the 
patriarchate  of  the  Jews,  which  in  the  person  of  the  last 
Gamaliel  had  received  high  honors  from  the  imperial  court, 
being  given  the  dignity  of  a  prefecture,  was  finally  abol- 
ished.98 But  passing  over  the  legislation  which  names 
only  the  Jews,  we  will  notice  those  edicts  in  which  the  Sa- 
maritans are  specified. 

For  the  year  426  a  law  is  preserved  which  guards  the 
interests  of  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan  converts  to  the  Chris- 
tian faith ;  in  such  cases  "  no  child  of  Jews  or  Samaritans 
is  to  be  disinherited  by  parents  or  grandparents,  or  receive 
less  by  testament  than  if  the  testator  had  died  intestate."99 
A   still  more   severe   edict   followed   thirteen   years   later, 
in  which  all   former  disabilities  of  the  opponents  of  the 
Catholic  faith  are  reaffirmed,  peculiar  advantages  abolished, 
and  new  disabilities  imposed.     In  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Hid   Novella  to  the   Theodosian   Code   (439) »  addressed 
against  "  Jews,  Samaritans,  Pagans,  and  all  kinds  of  Here- 
tics,"100 the  emperor  abrogates  all  earlier  laws  admitting 
Jews  and  Samaritans  to  civic  honors,   and  prohibits  spe- 
cifically their  receiving  the  function  of  Defensor,  a  kind  of 
gentlemanly  office  with  the  power  of  restraining  the  rapaci- 
ties of  governors  in  the  larger  cities.     The  reason  assigned 
is  the  fear  lest  these  sectarians  might  injure  or  insult  the 
Christians  and  their  clergy.     It  is  further  forbidden  to  COn- 
98  See  Griitz    op    cit.  iv,  389,  and  Note  22.     This  patriarch  lost  his 
honors  through  arrogance  (415),  and  the  empire  terminated  the  succes- 
sion upon  his  death,  circa  4^5-     The  emperor's  wife  Eudoxia  was  an 
especially  zealous  patroness  of  the  sacred  sites  of  Palestine. 
^Cod.  Theodos.  xvi,  8,  c.  28   (Ritter,  vi,  267).      _ 
100  See  Ritter's  edition  of  the  Novelise  of  Theodosius,  at  end  of  vol. 
vi    p   9     The  form  of  this  phrase  still  survives  in  the  Third  Collect  of 
the   Anglican   Church    for   Good   Friday,   "Jews,   Turks,   Infidels,   and 
Heretics"     The  same  phrase  appears  in  the  first  section:  Iudaeos  ba- 
maritas  Paganos  et  cetera  hsereticorum  genera  portentorum.     For  the 
last  word,   cf.   Jerome's   expression  portenta  nomma,   used   of  certain 
sects;  Ad  Gal.  u,  pref.    (Migne  xxvi,  382). 


HO  THE  SAMARITANS 

struct  new  synagogues,  or  rebuild  old  ones,  except  that 
dilapidated  edifices  might  be  propped  up.  The  conversion 
of  slave  or  freeman  is  made  a  capital  crime  and  entails  con- 
fiscation of  all  property,  while  attempts  upon  the  faith  of 
Christians  may  involve  the  same  penalty.  Those  who  have 
honors  may  no  longer  enjoy  them,  any  further  building  of 
synagogues  will  inure  to  the  profit  of  the  Church,  and  all 
the  members  of  the  sects  shall  relapse  into  the  condition  of 
the  meanest  inhabitants  of  the  empire.  Withal  they  are 
not  to  be  released  from  any  of  the  burdens  of  the  state,  as 
in  the  matter  of  all  imposts  or  military  duty,  lest  such 
exemption  should  be  to  their  advantage.  Only  they  may 
not  be  employed  as  apparitors  or  jailors,  lest  they  have 
opportunities  to  ill-treat  Christian  prisoners.  This  is  the 
fullest  imperial  law  we  possess  concerning  the  Jews  and 
Samaritans,  and  its  provisions  implied  the  repression  of 
those  sects;  later  laws  could  only  advance  to  complete  out- 
lawry. 

The  great  conflict  that  was  brewing  between  the  empire 
and  the  Samaritans  first  came  to  a  head  under  the  emperor 
Zeno  (474-491).  The  oppression  of  this  cruel  and 
degraded  ruler  fanned  the  flames  of  revolt  in  the  provinces, 
and  the  civil  war  started  by  Illus  (484)  produced  a  bloody 
revolt  which  particularly  devastated  Palestine.  In  486  there 
was  an  uprising  of  the  Jews  in  Antioch,  which  was  sup- 
pressed by  their  almost  entire  extermination  within  that 
city.  After  the  overthrow  of  Illus's  army,  the  Samaritans 
themselves  arose  and  proceeded  to  a  bloody  massacre  of  the 
Christians  (484),  some  exact  details  of  which  are  preserved 
in  the  Greek  chronicles.101  While  the  Christians  of  Neapolis 
were  celebrating  Whitsun,  the  Samaritans  attacked  them, 
and  cut  off  the  fingers  of  the  bishop  Terebinthus,  who  was 
officiating  at  the  altar.     The  Samaritans  thereupon  named 

lul  Chronic  on   Paschale,  to  year  484;    Procopius,  De  cedificiis,  v,  7 
(placing  the  event  in  the  year  490). 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  1 1 1 

as  king"  a  certain  Justa,  or  Justasa,  a  Samaritan  leader  of 
the  banditti  that  infested  the  land.  The  successful  rebels 
with  their  king  then  proceeded  to  C?esarea,  which  itself 
was  the  seat  of  a  large  Samaritan  community ;  here  they 
destroyed  many  Christians  and  burnt  down  the  church  of 
St.  Procopius,  while  Justa  celebrated  a  triumph  in  correct 
style  with  the  games  of  the  circus.  But  the  governor  of 
Palestine,  Asclepiades,  and  Rheges,  an  imperial  general, 
advanced  against  him  and  overthrew  him.  Meanwhile  the 
unfortunate  Terebinthus  had  fled  to  the  emperor  Zeno  and 
persuaded  him  to  vengeance  against  the  Samaritans.  The 
latter  were  expelled  from  Gerizim,  and  on  its  summit  a 
church  was  built  in  honor  of  the  Virgin,  the  first  Christian 
sanctuary  on  that  site.  About  the  old  Samaritan  temple  a 
stockade  was  established,  and  a  strong  guard  placed  in 
Neapolis.102  Procopius  adds  that  the  people,  though  sorely 
angered  and  distressed,  had  to  submit. 

For  these  events  the  Samaritan  chronicles  have  unusually 
full  information,  although  the  chronology  is  confused,  the 
affair  of  Justa  being  assigned  to  Marcian's  reign.103  The 
outbreak,  it  is  reported,  was  due  to  the  attempt  of  the  Chris- 
tians to  remove  the  bones  of  the  highpriests  Eleazar, 
Ithamar  and  Phineas,  a  case  like  that  earlier  enacted  about 
Joseph's  tomb.  The  governor  of  Caesarea  took  part  with 
the  Christians,  but  wishing  to  avoid  too  much  bloodshed, 
proposed  a  duel  of  champions.  On  the  Christian  side  was 
a  great  giant  accompanied  by  a  dog  of  demon-like  powers, 
but  the  Samaritan  champion,  Justia,  slew  the  beast,  and  the 
Christians    were    routed.     From   that   time   none    has    at- 

102  This  reference  to  the  temple  on  Gerizim  is,  in  addition  to  the 
parallel  reference  of  the  Samaritan  chronicle,  given  immediately  below, 
the  only  testimony  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  destroyed  by  John 
Hyrcanus.  But  on  the  other  side  is  to  be  placed  the  testimony  of  Pro- 
copius, in  the  following  century:  "They  never  built  any  temple  there, 
but  revered  in  their  worship  its  summit  as  the  holiest  place  of  all  " ; 
De  adificus,  v,  7. 

103  Abu'l  Path,   169-172;  Chron.   Adler,  74-76. 


112  THE  SAMARITANS 

tempted  to  enter  the  tombs  of  the  patriarchs.  Then  upon 
Zeno's  arrival  in  the  land,  he  brought  the  Samaritans  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Christian  courts.104  He  forbade 
their  burning-,  charring,  or  destroying  anything  with  fire; 
this  prescription  must  have  reference  in  part  to  the  peculiar 
fire-purifications  prevalent  amongst  the  Samaritans.105  He 
then  attempted  their  conversion,  ordering  them  to  adore  the 
cross,  and  killed  seventy  of  their  chiefs  at  the  "Colonnade." 
The  holy  places  of  the  community  were  confiscated,  the 
synagogue  of  Akbun  he  turned  into  a  monastery.106  Upon 
his  visit  to  the  synagogue  of  Baba  Rabba  he  was  surprised 
at  the  absence  of  images.  Next  he  demanded  the  sale  of 
the  holy  mount,  but  the  Samaritans,  while  politely  acknowl- 
edging his  power,  refused  to  enter  into  a  bargain ;  there- 
upon he  seized  the  temple,  its  precincts,  and  the  pools  of 
water  alongside.  The  temple  he  enlarged  and  turned  into 
a  Christian  church,  surmounted  with  a  large  white  dome, 
wherein  a  light  burned  at  night  —  which  could  be  seen 
as  far  as  Constantinople  and  Rome!  He  also  constructed 
a  tomb  in  front  of  the  temple,  so  that  when  the  Samaritans 
turned  towards  Gerizim,  they  would  have  to  face  the  tomb. 
As  for  the  body  which  it  contained,  Abu'l  Fath  records  two 
versions  of  the  story :  one  that  he  buried  there  a  child  of 
his,  the  other  that  he  himself  was  buried  there. 

In  addition  to  these  independent  data,  there  are  several 
interesting  correspondences  between  the  Byzantine  histo- 
rians and  the  Samaritan  chronicles,  as  in  the  name  of  the 
Samaritan  leader,  the  connection  of  Caesarea  with  the  his- 

104  This  statement  is  important  for  our  knowledge  of  the  legal  status 
of  the  community  at  Neapolis. 

105  See  Additional  Note  C. 

1O6C7w0n.  Adler  has:  "he  made  it  a  house  for  the  saints,  D'tmp; 
Abu'l  Fath:  "he  put  in  it  a  clergy-house,  and  made  in  front  of  it  a 
place  for  unveiled  (i.  e.  shameless)  women."  I  suggest  that  this  re- 
markable allusion  is  to  a  nunnery,  with  an  obscene  play  upon  the  sense 
of  qedoshim  according  to  the  primitive  technical  meaning  of  qedesha 
as  a  religious  prostitute,  e.  g.  Dt.  23,  18. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  113 

tory,  the  confiscation  of  the  synagogues  in  the  town  and  of 
the  holy  site  on  Gerizim,  and  the  replacement  of  the  Samari- 
tan temple  there  with  a  Christian  church.107 

The  loss  of  their  holy  places,  the  abrogation  of  their  pecu- 
liar rights,  the  contumely  of  the  Christians,  and  the  exac- 
tions of  the  corrupt  imperial  administration,  only  the  more 
exasperated  the  wretched  Samaritan  community,  but  to  its 
miserable  undoing.  In  the  troublous  days  of  Anastasius 
(491-518),  the  same  kind  of  fanaticism  that  exhibited  itself 
in  the  days  of  Pilate  was  repeated  by  a  mob  of  Samaritans, 
who,  headed  by  a  woman,  scaled  the  sacred  hill,  surprised 
and  massacred  the  garrison,  and  seized  the  church  of  St. 
Mary.  But  Procopius,  governor  of  Palestine,  was  soon 
able  to  suppress  the  uprising,  and  its  leaders  were  slain.108 

The  reign  of  the  most  orthodox  Justinian  (527-565) 
brought  renewed  and  final  disaster  upon  the  Samaritan 
sect.  The  memory  of  the  catastrophe  seems  to  have  been 
obliterated  in  the  mind  of  the  latter  by  the  frightful 
disorders  of  a  bloody  uprising  and  the  well-nigh  complete 
extermination  of  the  local  sect  by  the  imperial  reprisals ;  at 
all  events  no  information  of  this  period  is  to  be  gained  from 
the  Samaritan  chronicles.  On  the  other  hand  the  Byzan- 
tine annalists  and  Cyril  of  Scythopolis  have  preserved  vari- 
ous data,  which  afford  a  general  view  of  the  events,  while 
the  laws  of  Justinian  reflect  the  brutal  history  in  a  passion- 
less legal  code. 

The  tragedy  seems  to  have  received  its  impulse  from 
an  edict  of  Justinian  found  under  the  title  De  Hcereticis  ct 

107  The  evidence  of  the  Samaritan  records  concerning  the  site  of  the 
temple  and  of  the  church  of  St.  Mary  which  replaced  it  has  not  been 
appreciated  by  students.  There  are  several  points  of  archaeological 
interest  in  Abu'l  Fath's  story,  as  in  the  reference  to  the  dome  of  the 
church,  and  the  pools  confiscated  by  Zeno,  the  locality  of  which  can  still 
be  identified.  See  Guerin,  op.  cit.  i,  c.  xxv,  who,  however,  makes  no 
use  of  the  Samaritan  evidence. 

108  Procopius,  De  crdiiiciis,  v,  7. 

8 


114  THE  SAMARITANS 

Manichais  et  Samaritis,  issued  in  527.109  In  this  law  all 
the  earlier  disabilities  of  Pagans  ("Greeks"),  Jews,  and 
Samaritans  were  confirmed.  This  edict  was  immediately 
followed  by  a  new  law,110  providing  that  Orthodox  children 
of  members  of  those  sects  may  not  be  cut  off  by  testament, 
while  the  next  law  in  prohibits  the  same  classes  from  hold- 
ing councils,  elections,  or  ecclesiastical  offices,  and  from 
possessing  directly  or  indirectly  any  real  estate.  It  is  to  be 
noticed  that  in  these  edicts  the  Samaritans  still  appear  on 
the  same  footing  with  the  Jews. 

The  Samaritans  were  in  noble  company;  in  529  the  uni- 
versity of  Athens  was  closed  by  imperial  order,  such  was 
the  logical  consequence  of  the  laws  de  H<rreticis.  But  the 
fanatical  sects  of  the  empire  did  not  submit  to  suppression 
as  tamely  as  did  the  philosophers  of  Greece,  for  Procopius, 
the  contemporary  historian  and  one  time  governor  of  Syria, 
tells  how,  upon  the  enactment  of  these  repressive  edicts, 
immediately  "  the  whole  Roman  dominion  was  filled  with 
murder  and  flying  fugitives,"  and  the  same  narrator  then 
proceeds  to  detail  the  story  of  the  Samaritan  rebellion 
which  was  thus  incited.112 

The  great  uprising  took  place  in  the  middle  of  the  year 
529. 113     It    extended    over    the    whole    of    Samaria,  from 

109  Codex  Justinianus,  i,  5,  c.  12.  Reference  for  these  edicts  is  made 
to  Kriiger,  Codex  Justinianus,  Berlin,   1877. 

110  Ibid.,  c.  13. 

111  Ibid.,  c.  14. 

112  For  the  history  of  this  revolt  reference  has  been  made  for  most  of 
the  authorities  to  the  Corpus  scriptorum  historice  Bycantince,  Bonn ; 
viz.  Procopius,  Historia  arcana,  c.  11;  De  cediiiciis  Justiniani,  v,  7; 
John  Malalas,  445;  Ccdrenus,  i,  646;  Thcophancs,  274;  Chronicon 
Paschale,  619.  The  account  given  by  Cyrillus  Scythopolitanus  in  his 
Life  of  St.  Saba  is  quoted  in  part  by  Reland,  op.  cit.  674,  and  is  to  be 
found  in  Cotelerius,  Ecclesice  Gracce  monumenta,  iii,  340.  Eutychius, 
Annates,  ed.  M'igne,  cxi,  1070,  assigns  the  details  of  this  uprising  to 
that  of  "  the  2tst  year,"  referring  to  the  one  in  556;  see  below.  Cf.  also 
Abu'l  Faraj,  Historia  dynastiarum,  ed.  Pococke,  p.  147  (tr.  92)  ;  Chron- 
icum  Syriacum,  ed.  Bruns-Kirsch,  83. 

113  The  month  is  variously  given :  May,  by  Cyril ;  June  by  Malalas 
and  Theophancs.  The  former  date  may  refer  to  events  at  Scythopolis, 
the  latter  to  those  at  Gesarea.    For  the  date  see  Appel,  op.  cit.  84. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  115 

Scythopolis  in  the  east  to  Caesarea  on  the  coast.  Many 
places  were  burnt  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  former  city, 
according  to  Malalas,  while  Procopius,  who  is  interested  in 
"  his  city,"  reports  the  indignation  excited  amongst  the 
Samaritans  of  Caesarea  by  the  repressive  legislation  di- 
rected against  heretics.  By  reason  of  an  obscure  statement 
of  Malalas,  it  has  been  argued  that  the  Jews  took  part  in 
the    uprising    against    the    Christians :     rapax^    yevoyuev^s 

iOviKrjs  ovfiftaXovTwv  yap   Twv  HapapeiTwv  p.era£v  Xpiortavcov  /cat  'lov- 

Satwv;  with  this  understanding  of  the  history  Theophanes 
and  Cedrenus,  who  are  subsequent  to  the  genuine  Malalas 
at  least,114  agree,  stating  that  it  was  an  uprising  of  "  Jews 
and  Samaritans."  But  as  Gratz  points  out,115  the  obscure 
Greek  of  Malalas  indicates  that  the  Samaritans  attacked 
both  Christians  and  Jews.  At  all  events,  as  from  this 
moment  the  legislation  of  Justinian  begins  sharply  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  two  Israelitish  sects,  it  cannot  well 
be  held  that  the  Jews  participated  in  the  desperate  attempt 
of  their  rivals.  Procopius  adds  that  the  indignation  of  the 
Samaritans  caused  the  majority  to  pervert  to  the  Mani- 
chaeans  and  "  Polytheists  " —  an  obscure  statement,  as  both 
the  Manichaeans  and  Samaritans  were  in  the  same  boat. 
Probably  the  underlying  fact  is  that  the  two  sects  made  com- 
mon cause  in  this  rebellion. 

But  the  center  of  Samaritan  resistance  lay  naturally  in 
the  highlands  of  Samaria,  and  here  "  the  rustics  "  elevated 
a  certain  Samaritan  bandit,  Julian,  son  of  Sabar,  as  their 
emperor.116     At  Neapolis,  according  to  Cyril,  the  bishop 

114  See  below,  Note  133. 

115  Op.  cit.  iv,  Note  6. 

116  This  action  repeats  the  history  of  Justa,  as  above,  p.  in.  Malalas 
adds  here  the  anecdote  that  Julian  entered  Neapolis  escorted  by  a 
crowd  of  followers  and  attended  the  games ;  the  victor  in  the  first 
event,  Niceas,  proving  to  be  a  Christian,  the  upstart  king  had  him 
slain  to  avoid  the  evil  omen.  But,  in  the  first  place  there  was  no 
theatre  at  Neapolis,  whereas  that  of  Herod  at  Csesarea,  with  its  quin- 
quennial games  in  honor  of  Csesar,  was  famous ;  and  further  the  story 
is   suspiciously   like   the    anecdote   concerning  Justa.     It   is   also   most 


Il6  THE  SAMARITANS 

Sammon  (or  Ammon)  was  slain  along  with  many  presby- 
ters, and  the  rebels  prevailed  to  the  extent  of  making  the 
highways  impassable  to  Christians.  It  became  imperatively 
necessary  that  the  administration  should  interfere;  the  em- 
peror punished  with  death  the  governor  Bassus,  who  had 
not  forestalled  the  insurrection  (so  Malalas),  and  sent  duke 
Theodore  to  suppress  it ;  he  was  accompanied,  according  to 
Procopius,  by  the  (new)  governor  of  Palestine,  whose  name 
is  given  by  Cyril  as  John.117  With  the  forces  was  asso- 
ciated the  Saracenic  phylarch.  The  rebels  maintained 
themselves  "for  a  long  time"  (so  Procopius),  but  were 
finally  routed  and  dispersed,  losing,  the  same  historian 
asserts,  100,000  men,  which  figure  is  reduced  by  Malalas 
to  20,000.  Julian  was  captured,  and  his  head  sent  to  the 
emperor  (Malalas  and  Cedrenus).  The  fugitives  hid  them- 
selves in  the  hills  and  caves,  especially  on  Gerizim,  or  fled 
into  the  Trachonitis.  The  Arab  phylarch  obtained  for  his 
spoil  20,000  captives,  who  were  sold  to  distant  parts  of  the 
world. 

Cyril  tells  how  the  aged  and  holy  Saba  of  Scythopolis 
proceeded  to  Constantinople  to  obtain  satisfaction  and  pro- 
tection for  the  Christians.  He  found  opposition  at  court 
however.  The  Samaritan  atrocities  at  Scythopolis  had  been 
repaid  in  kind  by  the  Christians,  who  had  murdered  along 
with  other  victims  a  gentleman  named  Sylvanus,  a  protector 
of  the  Samaritans.  The  latter's  son,  Count  Arsenius,  ac- 
cordingly laid  a  counter-petition  before  the  emperor,  and 
even  gained  the  favor  of  the  empress  Theodora.  But  Saba 
finally  prevailed.  The  taxes  were  remitted  because  of  the 
depredations  that  had  been  wrought,  the  churches  were 
ordered  to  be  rebuilt,  and  reference  is  made  to  edicts  of 

unlikely  that  the  bandit  entered  Csesarea  in  view  of  Procopius's  silence 
concerning  such  an  event.  The  tale  is  evidently  a  reminiscence  of  the 
earlier   history. 

117  But  the   Paschal   Chronicle   here  names   Irenseus   the    Pentadian, 
who  also  appears  in  Malalas  as  the  new  governor. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  1 17 

outlawry  against  the  Samaritans,  which  will  be  noticed 
below.  The  new  governor  then  pursued  a  severe  persecu- 
tion of  the  Samaritans. 

Procopius,  in  De  ccdificiis,  v,  7,  gives  an  account  of 
Justinian's  building  operations  on  Gerizim  and  in  Shechem. 
The  emperor  reared  outside  of  the  old  stockade  erected  by 
Zeno  an  impregnable  wall.118  He  also  rebuilt  five  churches 
which  had  been  destroyed  on  Gerizim.119 

Theophanes  and  Malalas  recount  an  interesting  sequel  to 
the  story  of  this  desperate  uprising.120  A  deputation  was 
sent  to  the  Persian  king  from  the  Samaritans  offering  to  de- 
liver to  him  the  land  of  Palestine,  and  to  furnish  him  the  aid 
of  50,000  Samaritan  and  Jewish  troops;121  thereupon  the 
monarch  rejected  the  terms  of  peace  which  had  been  brought 
at  that  time  by  a  Roman  embassy,  his  covetousness  for  the 
rich  spoils  of  Jerusalem  being  excited  by  the  Samaritan 
offer.122  But  the  plot  was  discovered  by  the  arrest  of  the 
deputation,  consisting  of  five  Samaritans,  upon  their  return 
from  the  east.  The  incident  has  its  counterpart  in  the 
assistance  actually  given  by  the  Jews  to  Chosroes  II.  in  his 
conquest  of  Palestine  in  the  early  part  of  the  next  century. 
The  Samaritan  story  of  the  relations  between  the  Sassanide 
dynasty  and  the  Samaritans  in  the  Hid  Century,  is  prob- 
ably a  reminiscence  of  frequent  conspiracies  with  the  Per- 
sians, in  which  all  non-Christian  inhabitants  of  Syria  took 
part.123 

118  The  remains  of  this  wall  are  still  to  be  seen ;  Guerin,  op.  cit. 
i,  426. 

119  So  the  context,  and  not  as  Robinson,  BR  iii,  124,  "  in  the  city 
itself." 

120  Theophanes,  274 ;  Malalas,  455.  Malalas,  however,  narrates  the 
incident  in  connection  with  the  later  uprising  of  the  Samaritans  in 
Justinian's  reign,  for  which  see  below,  p.  121.  According  to  Malalas, 
the  Persian  monarch  concerned  is  Choades,  i.  e.,  Chobad:  according 
to  Theophanes,  Chosroes  I.  The  change  of  throne  from  the  former  to 
the  latter  monarch  occurred  in  531. 

121  Malalas  has  it  that  50,000  fled  into  Persia. 

122  The  embassy  was  led  by  Hermogenes,  according  to  Theophanes; 
by  Rufinus,  according  to  Malalas. 

123  See  above,  p.  96. 


il8  THE  SAMARITANS 

The  new  legislation  provoked  by  the  desperation  of  the 
Samaritans  is  amply  revealed  in  fresh  laws  of  Justinian. 
The  17th  Chapter  of  the  Title  De  Hccreticis  et  Manichccis 
et  Samaritis,  "  Concerning  the  Samaritans,"124  belongs  to 
the  year  of  the  Samaritan  uprising,  529.125  In  it  the  impe- 
rial legislation  took  prompt  steps  toward  the  outlawry  of  the 
obnoxious  sect.  This  Chapter  provides,  for  the  first  time, 
that  their  synagogues  are  to  be  destroyed,  while  their 
rebuilding  is  penalized;  the  Samaritans  may  have  no  heirs 
but  Orthodox  persons ;  nor  may  they  donate  property,  which 
in  such  a  case  is  to  be  confiscated,  the  bishops  as  well  as  the 
governors  being  charged  with  the  execution  of  this  pro- 
vision. The  next  edict126  repeats  the  former  provisions 
concerning  synagogues,  testaments,  and  civic  honors,  and 
further  inquires  into  the  pretensions  made  by  Samaritans 
of  conversion  to  Christianity,  the  genuineness  of  which  is 
to  be  ascertained  by  examining  whether  they  educate  their 
wives  and  children  in  the  Christian  faith.  The  children  of 
~nixed  marriages  must  be  brought  up  in  Orthodoxy.  This 
edict  includes  with  the  Samaritans  the  Manichseans,  Bor- 
borites,  Montanists,  Taskogrudi,  Ophites,  and  Pagans  in 
general,  but  the  Jews  are  not  mentioned.  With  the  des- 
perate revolt  of  529  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  had 
finally  parted  company  in  the  eyes  of  the  imperial  legislation. 

The  inquisition  into  the  genuineness  of  Samaritan  con- 
versions is  illustrated  by  a  statement  of  the  Paschal  Chroni- 
cle?2,1 which  shows  that  vigilance  had  to  be  exercised  over 
the  cowed  but  pertinacious  sect.  "  Some  of  them  in  fright 
attached  themselves  under  stress  to  Christianity,  and  were 
accepted  and  baptized.  And  to  this  day  they  play  a  double 
part.  On  the  one  hand  in  the  case  of  severity  on  the  part 
of  the  governors,  making  a  false  appearance  with  secret 

1-iCod.  Justinian,  i,  5,  c.  17   (ed.  Kriiger,  p.  82). 

125  Cf.  the  date  of  the  parallel  Latin  edict,  ibid.  c.  19. 

126  Ibid.,  c.  18. 

127  Chron.   PascJi.  619. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  119 

purpose  and  of  evil  intention,  they  declare  themselves  to  be 
Christians ;  but  in  the  case  where  governors  are  avaricious, 
the  Samaritans  act  as  hating  Christianity  and  as  ignorant 
of  it,  persuading  the  governors  to  let  them  Samaritize  by 
bribes."128 

The  repressive  legislation  was  continued  in  an  edict  of 
531,  by  which  Heretics  and  Jews  may  not  bear  witness  in 
cases  where  Orthodox  persons  are  concerned.  Amongst 
themselves  however  that  right  is  allowed,  exception  being 
made  however  against  "  the  Manichseans,  Borborites,  Pa- 
gans, and  the  Samaritans,  and  those  who  are  not  unlike 
the  latter,  namely  Montanists,  Taskodrugi,  and  Ophites." 
To  these  sects  all  judicial  rights  whatsoever  are  interdicted, 
the  only  exception  being  in  the  matter  of  wills,  contracts, 
etc.,  where  the  public  good  might  be  hampered  by  this 
strict  provision.129  This  law  is  interesting  for  its  assimila- 
tion of  the  Samaritans  with  the  extreme  Christian  sects.130 

In  a  Novella  of  537  Justinian  again  repeats  the  provisions 
of  the  edict  of  Theodosius  II.,  to  the  effect  that  Jews,  Sa- 
maritans and  Pagans  are  not  free  from  curial  responsibility, 
although  they  may  enjoy  no  curial  privileges.131 

But  the  crushing  blows  which  the  law  and  the  arm  of  the 
state  had  inflicted  upon  the  Samaritans  produced  the  de- 
sired results.  Procopius  testifies132  that  a  majority  of  the 
Samaritans  became  Christian  converts,  although  that  their 
ready-made  faith  was  often  hypocritical  has  been  already 

128  Procopius,  Hist,  arcana,  c.  27,  sub.  An.,  tells  of  a  certain  Faustina, 
who,  forced  into  Christianity  and  becoming  proconsul  of  Palestine, 
nevertheless  used  his  powers  to  oppress  the  Christians;  he  was  con- 
victed upon  the  charges  brought  against  him  by  ecclesiastics,  but 
bribed  the  emperor  Justinian,  and  so  avoided  the  penalty. 

129  Cod.  Justinian,  i,  5,  c.  21. 

130  The  term,  "  Manichaeans  and  Samaritans "  was  used  as  a  by- 
word of  reproach  between  the  factions  of  Constantinople  in  Justinian's 
reign ;  Theophanes,  i,  280. 

131  Novella,  xlv;  cf.  above,  p.  no.  Reference  for  the  Novelhe  is 
made  to  Osenbriiggen's  edition  of  the  Corpus  juris  cknlis,  Leipzig, 
1854,  vol.   iii. 

132  Historia  arcana,  c.  11. 


120  THE  SAMARITANS 

noticed.  The  backbone  of  revolt  now  seemed  broken,  and 
Justinian  was  doubtless  too  acute  a  statesman  to  enjoy 
the  presence  in  his  realm  of  a  race  of  absolute  outlaws,  so 
that  when  an  appeal  for  clemency  was  made  to  him  by 
Sergius,  bishop  of  Csesarea,  in  which  city  the  Samaritans 
had  been  both  numerous  and  financially  potent,  he  retracted 
some  of  the  extreme  prescriptions  against  the  sect.  His 
new  regulations  and  the  reasons  therefor  are  set  forth  in 
full  in  the  CXXIXth  Novella,  De  Samaritis,  and  are  in  ab- 
stract as  follows: 

In  the  Preface  he  magnanimously  asserts  that  "  there  is 
no  delinquency  of  his  subjects  which  his  clemency  cannot 
heal,"  and  that  he  follows  the  principle  of  tempering  "  the 
justice  of  wrath  with  the  reasons  of  mercy."  He  refers 
to  the  unique  arrogance  of  the  Samaritans  in  their  re- 
bellion, and  sums  up  the  earlier  edicts  outlawing  them  from 
all  rights  of  testament  and  alienation  of  property.  Never- 
theless, he  observes,  the  keenness  of  the  law  has  not  been 
carried  out  in  practice,  for  he  has  not  permitted  the  state- 
treasury  to  derive  any  advantage  from  those  penal  statutes. 
He  then  proceeds,  in  Chapter  i,  to  relate  how  Sergius, 
pleading  that  the  Samaritans  had  greatly  improved,  and 
vouching  for  their  future  loyalty,  had  induced  him  to  make 
changes  in  their  legal  status.  He  extends  to  them  the 
usual  testamentary  rights  and  the  laws  applying  to  intes- 
tates, and  also  the  powers  of  contract  and  donation.  But 
in  Chapter  2,  he  asserts  he  will  not  put  Christian  heirs  upon 
the  same  footing  as  those  who  have  remained  Samaritans; 
in  case  of  intestate  property,  it  can  be  claimed  only  by 
Orthodox  Christians.  Nevertheless,  according  to  the  3d 
Chapter,  to  offer  chance  of  repentance,  if  any  who  have  been 
excluded  from  inheritance  turn  to  the  true  faith,  they  shall 
receive  their  due  share,  though  without  the  usufruct  of  the 
time  elapsed.  But  a  testator  may  not  devise  more  than  a 
sixth  of  his  property  to  unbelievers,  and  yet  the  like  chance 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  121 

of  repentance  and  resulting-  profit  shall  be  open  to  these 
latter.  The  4th  Chapter  prohibits  the  treasury  receiving 
any  advantage  from  the  older  laws,  and  makes  the  present 
law  retroactive  in  this  respect. 

But  Justinian's  earlier  severity  rather  than  the  clemency 
of  his  later  days  was  approved  by  the  results.  The  sore 
of  the  race  had  advanced  too  far  for  "  his  clemency  to 
heal."  The  desperate  sect  arose  in  yet  another  insurrec- 
tion, recorded  for  the  year  556.133  To  condense  our  au- 
thorities, in  July  of  that  year,  the  Samaritans  of  Csesarea 
revolted,  attacked  and  killed  many  of  the  Christians,  and 
burnt  churches.  They  slew  the  eparch  Stephen  in  the  prae- 
torium,  and  plundered  his  property;  his  wife  fled  and  ap- 
pealed to  the  emperor,  who  sent  as  governor  Amantius 
(Theophanes),  or  Adamantius  (Cedrenus),  and  summary 
vengeance  was  taken  upon  the  Samaritans. 

There  is  yet  further  evidence  for  the  obstinate  unruliness 
of  the  Samaritans,  which  again  brought  upon  them  the  ven- 
geance of  the  empire.  In  a  letter  of  a  certain  Simeon,  the 
author  complained  to  the  emperor  Justin  II.  (565-578)  con- 
cerning" the  outrages  committed  by  a  settlement  of  Samari- 
tans at  the  foot  of  Mt.  Carmel  upon  the  Christian  churches 
and  especially  upon  the  holy  images.134     The  rebelliousness 

133  The  authorities  are  Malalas,  455 ;  Cedrenus,  i,  675 ;  Theophanes, 
i>  355-  As  the  scene  is  Csesarea,  Robinson  holds,  BR  iii,  125,  that 
probably  the  story  belongs  to  the  events  of  529.  (As  we  have  seen, 
Malalas  and  Eutychius  are  confused  between  the  two  uprisings.)  But 
as  Juynboll  remarks,  Hist.  Sam.,  162,  the  details  of  this  fresh  insur- 
rection differ  from  those  of  the  earlier  date,  to  which  argument  it 
may  be  added  that  it  is  strange  that  Procopius  did  not  relate  these  out- 
rages in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  events  of  529.  There  are 
to  be  sure  some  cases  of  confusion  in  the  story  of  Malalas,  as  in  plac- 
ing the  narrative  of  the  conspiracy  with  the  Persian  king  in  connection 
with  the  second  insurrection,  and  in  his  entanglement  of  the  stories  of 
Justa  and  Julian.  Malalas  should  be,  as  a  contemporary,  a  first  rate 
witness,  but  in  matter  of  fact  the  xviiith  book  of  his  history,  bearing 
on  Justinian's  reign,  is  of  doubtful  authenticity;  see  Bury  in  Gibbon, 
op.  cit.   iv,  518. 

134  This  letter  is  a  document  laid  before  the  Second  Council  of 
Nicaea  (787),  in  the  Iconoclastic  controversy,  and  is  contained  in  Har- 


122  THE  SAMARITANS 

of  the  Samaritans,  instanced  in  such  outrages,  seems  to 
have  been  the  cause  of  the  reversal  of  the  former  imperial 
clemency,  and  Justin  II.  issued  an  edict,  the  CXLIVth  No- 
vella (572),  in  which  he  indignantly  deprives  them  of  all 
privileges,  and  except  in  one  particular  wholly  outlaws  them. 
In  the  Preface  the  emperor  refers  to  his  father's  benevo- 
lence, which  has  been  so  ill  rewarded  by  the  sect.  In  the 
1st  Chapter  he  deprives  them  of  all  testamentary  and  con- 
tractual rights,  confiscating  to  the  public  treasury  all  prop- 
erty for  which  there  are  no  Orthodox  heirs.  In  the  2d 
Chapter  he  makes  an  exception  in  the  case  of  peasant  hold- 
ings. The  rustics  may  make  testamentary  and  other  dis- 
position of  their  property  to  their  coreligionists,  in  order 
that  the  taxable  value  of  the  land  may  not  be  decreased 
through  the  outlawry  of  the  farming  population.  In  case 
of  failure  of  heirs  to  the  farmer-tenant  the  proprietor  of 
the  land  must  take  it  up  and  satisfy  the  public  treasury  fol- 
ks taxes.135  The  law  then  forbids  to  the  Samaritans  all 
military  and  civil  service,  the  rights  of  legal  advocacy,  of 
legal  education,  and  of  the  instruction  of  youth.  If  upon 
simulated  conversion  the  Samaritans  are  found  to  be  keep- 
ing the  Sabbath  or  other  like  institutions,  their  property  is 
to  be  confiscated,  and  themselves  exiled.  Also  to  insure 
genuine  conversion,  none  is  to  be  received  to  baptism  ex- 
cept after  a  two  years'  catechumenate  under  good  teachers 
and  with  a  course  of  Bible  instruction.  Children  however 
may  be  admitted  without  this  preparation.  The  Samari- 
tans may  not  possess  Christian  slaves,  and  if  they  hold  any, 

douin,  Acta  Conciliorum,  iv,  290  (cf.  p.  781)  5  see  Juynboll,  op.  cit. 
163.  The  author  has  been  confused  with  Simon  Stylites.  The  senti- 
ment of  the  Council  was  that  the  Samaritans  were  the  worst  kind  of 
heretics  because  they  destroyed  images! 

135  This  provision  is  illustrated  by  a  statement  of  Procopius,  Hist, 
arcana,  c.  11,  to  the  effect  that  the  Christian  proprietors  in  Samaria 
suffered  great  losses  upon  the  rebellion  of  529  through  the  obligation 
laid  on  them  of  making  good  the  taxes,  when  the  peasant  tenants  had 
been  so  largely  exterminated  and  the  value  of  the  estates  correspond- 
ingly diminished. 


UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  EMPIRE  123 

these  become  ipso  facto  free ;  a  Samaritan  slave  obtains  his 
freedom  if  he  accepts  Christianity. 

Thus,  with  the  avoidance  of  actual  extermination,  the 
imperial  legislation  had  reached  the  extreme  in  the  outlawry 
of  the  Samaritan  sect.  But  one  legal  right  was  preserved 
to  a  portion  of  the  race ;  to  avoid  the  impoverishment  of 
the  land,  the  rustic  population  still  maintained  some  prop- 
erty rights.  But  every  inducement,  even  of  bribery  and  tor- 
ture, was  offered  for  perversion  to  Christianity ;  all  offices 
of  honor,  all  opportunities  of  culture,  were  closed  to  the 
wretched  people.  It  is  a  credit  to  the  firmness  of  the  sect 
that  it  alone  out  of  the  innumerable  petty  "  heresies  "of 
the  Roman  empire  has  survived  to  the  present  day,  while 
the  cause  of  its  intellectual  degeneracy  is  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  Christian  empire,  unable  as  the  latter  was  to  blot  it 
out.  According  to  Procopius's  remark,  only  a  minority  re- 
mained true  to  the  ancestral  faith;  many  must  have  fled  to 
the  Persian  kingdom,  which  was  now  threatening  the  east- 
ern borders,  and  we  have  seen  how  these  sectarians  as- 
sisted in  further  embroiling  Rome  with  its  oriental  rival. 
As  for  those  who  remained  at  home,  only  the  peasant  life 
was  legally  open  to  them. 

For  the  half  century  succeeding  Justin  II.  down  to 
the  Arabic  conquest  of  Palestine,  the  imperial  chronicles 
report  nothing  about  the  Samaritans;  the  latter  have  pre- 
served but  one  reminiscence  of  the  age  when  Syria  was 
the  debatable  ground  between  the  Greek  empire  and  Per- 
sia. The  Chronicle  Ncubauer  states136  that  twenty  years 
before  the  Arabic  conquest  "  Chosroes  king  of  Assyria 
crucified  a  great  number  of  Samaritans,"  and  that  two 
years  later  Arqali,  king  of  Rome,  seized  the  land  of  Canaan. 
The  former  event  is  to  be  connected  with  Chosroes  II. 's 
conquest  of  Palestine  in  614;  as  the  Jews  gave  him  hearty 
assistance,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  Samaritans  were 

136  Chron.  Nenb.,  445 ;  cf.  Chron.  Adler,  79. 


124  THE  SAMARITANS 

found  in  the  opposition,  and  so  suffered  the  ill-treatment 
recorded.  Arqali  is  the  emperor  Heraclius,  who  recon- 
quered Syria  in  622.  With  this  fragment  of  information 
our  knowledge  of  the  Roman  dominion  over  the  Samaritans 
comes  to  an  end. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  SAMARITANS  UNDER  ISLAM. 

For  this  period  of  Samaritan  history  we  have  as  native 
sources  the  Chronicle  Neitbauer,  the  supplements  to  Abu' I 
Fath,  and  the  Chronicle  Adler.  The  first-named  chronicle 
contains  for  the  most  part  genealogical  material  offering 
but  few  connections  with  general  history  and  chronology. 
The  supplements  to  Abu' I  Fath  bring  the  history  down 
only  as  far  as  the  Xth  Century.1  The  Chronicle  Adler, 
while  containing  a  fairly  good  skeleton  of  imperial  history, 
which  it  has  borrowed  from  Arabic  historians,  gives,  apart 
from  the  matter  found  in  the  earlier  chronicles  and  cer- 
tain details  concerning  some  personalities,  almost  no  inde- 
pendent historical  information  until  the  XVIIth  Century. 
The  references  in  the  Muslim  historians  are  very  few,  giv- 
ing valuable  notes  on  the  Samaritan  religion,  but  throw- 
ing almost  no  light  on  their  secular  history.  For  the  one 
period  when  the  western  world  might  have  left  some  record 
of  this  Palestinian  sect,  namely  the  age  of  the  Crusades, 
we  find  that  the  Christian  chronicles  absolutely  ignore  the 
subject  of  our  study.  One  or  two  references  sum  up  the 
information  to  be  derived  from  mediaeval  Judaism.  With 
the    re-discovery   of    the    Samaritans    by    Scaliger    at   the 

1  See  Vilmar,  pp.  v,  lxxxv,  and  in  general,  below,  Chapter  XIV,  §  II. 
A  supplement  common  to  Vilmar's  codices  A  and  C  brings  down  the 
history,  although  in  many  cases  with  nothing  more  than  the  names  of 
the  caliphs,  to  Harun  ar-Rashid,  while  A  contains  a  list  of  the  high- 
priests  to  1853.  A  second  supplement  to  C  pursues  the  history  to  the 
end  of  the  reign  of  the  caliph  Radhi,  A.  D.  940,  but  the  text  of  this 
portion  is  so  corrupt  that  the  editor  gives  only  a  synopsis  of  its 
contents,  p.  lxxx  et  seq. 

125 


126  THE  SAMARITANS 

end  of  the  XVIth  Century,  they  emerge  again  into  con- 
temporary notice,  and  their  Epistles  and  then  the  inquiries 
and  actual  visits  of  occidental  scholars  acquaint  us  more 
and  more  with  their  later  history,  until  at  last  Petermann's 
famous  sojourn  amidst  the  declining  sect  in  1853  finally 
opened  up  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  them  on  the  part 
of  the  western  world.  But  in  these  last  days  we  can 
hardly  speak  of  a  history  in  connection  with  that  almost 
petrified  fragment  of  ancient  religion.  In  the  following 
brief  sketch  I  confine  myself  to  the  data  concerning  the 
Samaritans,  without  attempting  a  survey  of  the  history 
of  Palestine. 

Abu'l  Fath  dramatically  concludes  his  Chronicle  with 
a  story,  belonging  to  a  wide  cycle  of  Muslim  legend,2 
narrating  how  three  astrologers,  a  Jew,  a  Christian,  and 
a  Samaritan  —  a  certain  Zohar  Sarmasa  —  became  sensi- 
ble through  their  art  of  the  passing  of  the  world-empire 
into  Mohammed's  hands.  They  simultaneously  visited  him, 
and  the  Samaritan  was  able  to  show  how  his  sacred  books 
foretold  the  new  prophet.  The  Jew  and  the  Christian  per- 
verted to  the  new  faith,  but  the  Samaritan  remained  faith- 
ful, and  Mohammed  finally  granted  him  a  charter  bestow- 
ing complete  immunity  in  faith  and  possessions  upon  the 
Samaritans,3  a  legend  which  is  immediately  belied  by  the 
subsequent  history.  The  Samaritans  received  for  their  ob- 
stinate rejection  of  Islam  the  same  bitter  persecutions  that 
befell  the  Jews,  and  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  major 
part  of  the  sect  fell  away  under  the  iron  hand  and  the  at- 
tractive advantages  of  the  new  faith,  so  that  the  sect  was 
gradually  reduced  to  a  few  small  fragments  scattered  over 
Syria  and  Egypt. 

With  the  Muslim  victory  at  Yarmuth,  634,  the  fate  of 
Palestine   was  settled,   and   the   Arabic   historians   include 

2  See  Lidzbarski,  De  propheticis  qua  dicuntur  legendis  Arabicis. 

3  Abu'l  Fath,  172;  Chron.  Neub.,  443;  Chron.  Adler,  76. 


UNDER  ISLAM  127 

Nablus  among-  the  places  which  soon  thereafter  fell  to  the 
conquerors.4  Upon  this  conquest,  so  the  Chronicle  Abu'l 
Fath  states,  the  people  of  the  seaboard  towns,  Csesarea, 
Arsuf,  Maiumas  (the  port  of  Gaza),  Joppa,  Lydda,  Ash- 
kelon,  and  Gaza,  deposited  their  goods  with  the  highpriest 
and  "  fled  to  the  east  and  never  returned  hither."  This  is 
evidently  an  authentic  account  of  the  flight  of  the  wealthy 
Samaritans  of  the  coast  towns  before  the  certain  advance 
of  the  Muslims.  Where  the  fugitives  found  refuge  in  the 
east  we  cannot  surmise,  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
they  would  have  had  no  hope  of  a  welcome  in  the  Byzan- 
tine empire  which  had  so  bitterly  persecuted  the  sect.  The 
same  source  also  gives  an  account  of  the  capture  of  Csesarea, 
which  fell  at  last  in  640;  the  Samaritan  community  in  that 
city  must  have  sadly  suffered  from  the  vengeance  of  the 
conquerors. 

No  memories  of  the  age  of  the  Umayyad  caliphs  are 
preserved  except  that  of  the  great  earthquake  in  Marwan 
II. 's  reign.5  The  bloody  wars  between  this  dynasty  and  the 
Abbasides  are  noted,  and  under  Mansur  (754-775),  the 
second  of  the  new  dynasty,  occurred  the  destruction  by 
order  of  the  local  governor,  Abd  al-Wahhab  Abu  Shindi,  of 
the  tomb  of  Zeno  upon  Gerizim.6  Subsequently  an  assault 
made  by  certain  people  upon  the  Christian  convent  in  the 
same  locality,  involving  the  murder  of  the  monks,  brought 
upon  the  Samaritans  the  wrath  of  the  governor,  who  put 
to  death  the  head  man  of  the  Samaritans.7  Under  the  next 
caliph  Mahdi  there  was  taken  a  census  of  the  Samaritan 
community,  a  function  which  had  been  long  omitted.8  The 
Chronicle  Abu'l  Fath  proceeds  to  give  a  long  account  of 
the  various  calamities  which,  in  consequence  of  the  civil 

4  Abu'l   Fida,  Annates,  ed.  Adler,  i,  229. 

5  Abu  I  Fath,  181;  Chron.  Adler,  84  (cf.  editor's  note). 

6  See  above,  p.   112. 

7  Abu'l  Fath,  181;  Chron.  Adler,  85. 

8  Abu'l  Fath,  182. 


128  THE  SAMARITANS 

war  between  Hadi  and  Harun  ar-Rashid  (786)  afflicted 
the  Samaritans,  including  a  sample  of  an  unnatural  crime 
and  a  fearful  dearth  of  provisions.9  But  at  last  God  averted 
his  wrath,  all  the  natural  disorders,  regarded  by  the  chroni- 
cler as  due  to  his  people's  sin,  were  abated,  these  happy 
times  coming  in  under  the  caliphate  of  Harun  ar-Rashid.10 
Our  authority  for  the  period  following  this  caliph  is, 
as  noted  above,  the  supplement  peculiar  to  the  codex  C 
of  Abu' I  Fath,  as  epitomized  by  Vilmar.11  The  sum  of 
the  chronicle  is  as  follows.  The  wrath  of  the  Abbaside 
caliphs  fell  upon  all  who  dissented  from  Islam,  and  the 
Samaritans  were  so  cruelly  affected  that  a  great  part  of 
them  went  into  exile,  while  others  apostatized.  In  the  war 
that  followed  Harun's  death  (809),  between  his  sons,  Pal- 
estinian rebels  destroyed  the  Samaritan  towns  Zaita,  Salem, 
and  Arsuf,  and  variously  oppressed  the  sect.  After  the 
death  of  Amin,  the  first  of  the  brothers,  a  governor  of 
Nablus  was  killed  by  the  Muslims  for  showing  favor  to  the 
Samaritans.  The  land  was  filled  with  corpses;  a  daughter 
of  the  highpriest  committed  fornication,  but  condemnation 
was  not  passed  upon  her.  But  at  last  with  the  restoration 
of  the  divine  favor  the  Samaritans  resumed  their  sacred 
rites  upon  Gerizim.  Under  the  caliph  Maamun  (813-833), 
his  famous  general  Abdallah  ibn  Tahir,  the  governor  of 
Mesopotamia  and  Syria,  brought  quiet  to  the  distressed 
land  and  gave  the  Samaritans  a  breathing  space.  With  Ab- 
dallah's  departure  into  Egypt  the  rebel  Ibn  Farasa  cruelly 
attempted  to  force  the  Samaritans  into  Islam,  and  many 
submitted ;  at  last  the  caliph  suppressed  the  rebellion.  Fi- 
nally Maamun  inaugurated  the  policy  of  destroying  the 
castles  through  the  land  to  prevent  them  from  falling  into 
the  hands  of  rebels,  and  amongst  them  the  fort  constructed 

»Ibid.,  184. 

10  Ibid.,  185. 

11  P.  lxxx. 


UNDER  ISLAM  129 

by  Zeno  on  Gerizim.  The  caliph  himself  oppressed  the  land 
with  heavy  imposts  which  were  cruelly  exacted  by  his  gov- 
ernor. In  the  reign  of  the  succeeding  caliph,  Mutasim, 
heretical  sects  of  Islam  seized  and  destroyed  Nablus,  and 
burnt  the  synagogues  of  the  Samaritans  and  Dositheans. 
The  rebels  were  finally  overwhelmed,  but  the  Samaritans 
were  brought  to  great  straits  under  the  heavy  imposts,  al- 
though none  of  the  people  yielded  to  apostasy.  It  is  also 
recorded  that  two  of  the  Samaritan  chiefs  rebuilt  the  syna- 
gogue which  had  been  destroyed  in  the  wars.  At  the  end 
of  the  same  caliphate  a  rebel,  Abu  Harb  (who  also  cap- 
tured Jerusalem),  took  Nablus  and  scattered  the  inhabitants, 
the  chief  priest  being  wounded  and  transported  to  Hebron 
where  he  died.  The  next  caliph  Wathik  finally  allayed 
the  rebellion,  and  the  Samaritans  returned  to  their  abodes. 
But  both  this  monarch  and  his  brother  and  successor  Muta- 
wakkil  were  so  bitterly  opposed  to  all  dissenters,  that  the 
sufferings  of  the  Samaritans  in  no  wise  decreased;  under 
the  second  of  these  despots  the  sacred  tomb  of  a  former 
highpriest  Nathanael  was  destroyed,  the  law  regulating  the 
color  of  the  garments  worn  in  the  different  religions  was 
introduced,  and  the  Samaritans  were  prohibited  from  exer- 
cising the  offices  of  their  religion.12  After  this  Yusuf  ibn 
Dasi,  "  sultan  of  Palestine,"  is  recorded  as  allowing  the 
Samaritans  access  to  Gerizim  but  forbidding  it  to  the 
Dositheans.  But  there  followed  storms  of  most  frightful 
evils,  and  many  abandoned  their  native  religion.13  The  last 
caliph  named  is  Radhi,  934-940,  who  was  helpless  to  re- 
strain the  warring  governors  of  Palestine ;  a  rebel,  Abu  Ta- 
fach,  cruelly  oppressed  the  Samaritans.  With  Radhi's  reign 
the  real  power  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  "  Amir  of 
Amirs,"  or  mayor-of-the-palace,  and  the  Abbaside  power 

12  This  action  is  parallel  to  the  destruction  by  the  same  monarch  of 
the  newly  built  Christian  churches  in  Bagdad. 

13  The  reference  may  be  to  the  Carmathian  revolt,  which  began  in 
the  last  quarter  of  the  IXth  Century. 

9 


130 


THE  SAMARITANS 


was  at  end.  Such  is  the  conclusion  of  the  last  supplement 
to  Codex  C  of  Abu' I  Fath. 

It  is  evident  that  some  authentic  notes  have  been  pre- 
served by  this  supplement.  But  it  is  an  unprofitable  story 
except  for  the  almost  unintermittent  picture  it  gives  of  the 
misfortunes  of  the  miserable  sect,  persecuted  by  both  ortho- 
dox and  heretical  parties  of  Islam,  and  harried  by  the  wars 
which  swept  over  the  debatable  land  of  Palestine. 

To  take  up  such  scanty  data  of  the  Samaritan  chronicles 
as  we  possess  after  the  failure  of  the  supplements  to  Abu' I 
Fath,  we  find  some  references  to  the  favor  shown  the 
Samaritans  by  the  Fatimide  caliphs  of  Egypt,  Muizz  and 
Aziz,  the  former  of  whom  conquered  Syria  in  970,  while  the 
latter  (975-996)  is  said  to  have  shown  distinguished  honor 
to  a  Samaritan  ha-Takwi  b.  Isaac,  who  was  his  governor  of 
Palestine,  with  his  seat  at  Sepphoris.14  Under  the  next 
Fatimide  caliph,  that  magnificent  impostor  Hakim  (996- 
1020),  without  doubt  the  Samaritans  suffered  under  the 
earlier  drastic  edicts  which  renewed  the  ancient  laws  against 
the  Christians  and  Samaritans ;  but  later,  we  may  suppose, 
the  sect  enjoyed  the  liberal  terms  of  the  remission  of  his 
former  severity  against  dissenters.  Juynboll  thinks  that 
there  are  numerous  traces  of  Samaritan  polemic  against  the 
sect  of  the  Druzes.15  Shortly  after  this  reign  the  Chronicle 
Neubaiier  (/.  c.)  mentions  a  certain  Ab-Chasdiya,  a  Samari- 
tan, who  was  an  official  "  inquisitor  of  all  Palestine,"  with 
headquarters  first  at  Csesarea  and  then  at  Acco. 

For  the  age  of  the  Crusades,  when  East  and  West  came 
to  know  each  other  once  more,  we  have  most  meagre  infor- 
mation  concerning  the   Samaritans.     Almost   all   that  the 

^  Chron.  Neub.,  446;  Chron.  Adlcr,  92.  Ha-Takwi's  son  also  served 
the  same  monarch  in  a  like  capacity  at  Ramie,  Chron.  Ncub.,  448; 
Chron.  Adlcr,  93. 

15  Juynboll,  Lib.  Jos.,  117,  with  references  to  de  Sacy  s  studies  of 
the  Druzes.  Chron.  Neub.,  p.  447,  mentions  the  same  Hakim  along 
with  an  obscure  reference  to  the  fate  of  a  governor  he  sent  to  rule 
Palestine. 


UNDER  ISLAM  131 

Chronicle  Adler  has  to  say  (p.  94  ff)  concerning-  the  in- 
vasion of  the  Seljuk  Turks  and  the  holy  wars  which  the 
Europeans  waged  for  the  recovery  of  Palestine,  is  drawn 
from  foreign  sources.16  On  the  other  hand,  the  Crusaders, 
despite  the  fact  that  their  armies  went  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  Holy  Land  and  that  for  extensive  terms  of 
years  their  rule  was  established  on  its  sacred  soil,  have  left 
no  record  of  the  Samaritans.  Nablus  played  an  important 
part  in  the  internal  history  of  the  Kingdom  of  Jerusalem; 
it  was  strongly  fortified  by  the  Franks,  it  became  a  sort  of 
royal  residence  for  the  court,  especially  for  the  strong- 
minded  women  who  troubled  the  Christian  regime  and 
found  the  oriental  Naples  a  convenient  locality  for  their  fac- 
tions.17 In  1 120  a  great  ecclesiastical  council  was  held  at 
Nablus  with  the  hopeless  purpose  of  reforming  the  Crusad- 
ers.18 But  still  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Samaritans,  who, 
if  they  were  noticed  at  all  by  the  haughty  Crusaders,  were 
doubtless  reckoned  a  sect  of  the  Jews.  It  remains  there- 
fore for  us  only  to  note  the  part  Nablus  played  or  rather 
suffered  in  those  troublous  times ;  the  chronicle  of  calamities 
will  contribute  to  the  explanation  of  the  diminution  in  popu- 
lation and  wealth  of  its  ancient  sect. 

The  first  reference  to  Samaria  in  the  Christian  chronicles 
is  to  the  effect  that  chieftains  from  the  mountains  of  that 
land  came  in  to  the  conquerors  of  Jerusalem,  which  fell  in 

16  In  the  Epistle  of  1808  the  Samaritans  record  a  tradition  that  600 
years  before  the  Franks  carried  off  with  them  the  Samaritans  of 
Ashkelon  and  Csesarea  (N.  et  E.  75).  Some  historical  truth  may  be 
contained  in  this  notice.  It  was  this  tradition  which  animated  the 
pathetic  inquiries  of  the  sect  after  their  coreligionists  in  Europe.  In 
Abu'l  Fath,  132,  there  is  reference  to  a  synagogue  built  by  Baba  Rabba 
which  lasted  until  the  dominion  of  the  Franks  — "  God  curse  them !  " 

17  The  index  to  Rohricht,  Geschichte  d.  Kbnigreichs  Jerusalem,  s.  v. 
"  Neapolis,"  exhibits  the  intimate  relations  of  Nablus  with  the  Crusad- 
ing kingdom.  King  Baldwin  built  a  turns  Neapolitana  {op.  cit.,  120), 
and  later  there  is  mention  of  two  citadels. 

is  William  of  Tyre,  xii,  13 ;  the  acts  are  published  by  Mansi,  Concil. 
xxi,  261.  It  is  generally  denied  that  Neapolis  became  an  episcopal  see ; 
but  see  Barges,  Les  Samaritains,  94. 


132  THE  SAMARITANS 

1099,  bringing  presents  and  inviting  the  invaders  to  take 
possession  of  their  territory,  an  offer  which  was  immediately 
accepted,  as  its  conquest  was  already  planned.19  We  may 
incline  to  the  supposition  that  among  these  adherents  to 
the  new  order  were  hardy  Samaritans  who  welcomed  the 
overthrow  of  Islam,  now  that  centuries  had  cast  into  ob- 
livion the  ancient  hatred  for  the  Christians.  In  11 13 
Nablus  was  laid  waste  by  the  Saracens.20  In  1137  Baza- 
wash,  a  governor  of  Damascus,  surprised  and  murdered  al- 
most all  the  citizens  of  Nablus.21  This  event  must  be  iden- 
tified with  one  recorded  in  the  Samaritan  chronicles,22  ac- 
cording to  which  in  or  before  1137  (as  can  be  calculated 
from  the  terms  of  the  highpriests)  a  certain  Bazuga  Zeidna 
(variants  exist)  took  500  Samaritans  captive  at  Shechem 
and  transported  them  to  Damascus,  whence  they  were  re- 
deemed by  a  generous  Samaritan  citizen  of  Acco,  and  so 
returned  to  Gaza. 

The  Samaritan  town,  with  all  its  holy  places  and  relics 
so  sacred  to  the  Christians,  reverted  to  Muslim  rule  under 
Saladin.  In  1184,  after  the  latter's  withdrawal  from  Ke- 
rak,  it  was  taken  and  ravaged  by  him,  with  the  exception 
of  its  two  citadels.23  After  the  fateful  battle  of  Hattin  in 
1 187,  Nablus  was  again  wasted  by  Saladin's  troops.24  It 
remained  in  Muslim  hands  during  the  brief  triumph  of 
Frederick  II.  in  the  Holy  Land    (1229).25     In   1242  the 

19  William  of  Tyre,  ix,  20;  Wilken,  Geschichte  d.  Kreussiige,  ii, 
36.  According  to  Sybel.  Geschichte  d.  ersten  Krcuzzuges,  443,  Nablus 
was  one  of  the  few  cities  which  composed  Godfrey's  actual  kingdom. 
William  of  Tyre  is  quoted  by  Robinson  as  describing  Neapolis  as 
"  urbem  opulentam." 

20  Foulcher,  c.  xli  (in  Guizot,  Collections  des  mcmoires  relatifs  d 
Vhistoire  de  France,  xvii,  41)  ;  Wilken,  op.  cit.  374. 

21  William   of   Tyre,  xiv,  27;   Rohricht,   op.   cit.  205. 

22  Chron.  Neub.,  448;  Chron.  Adler,  95. 

23  Baha  ad-Din,  Saladini  vita,  c.  xxviii ;  Abu'l  Fida,  ad  an.  H.,  580. 
The  Crusading  chronicles  seem  to  deny  that  the  city  was  injured, 
Rohricht,  op.  cit.  409. 

24  Baha  ad-Din,  c.  xxxiv ;  Abu'l  Fida,  ad  an.  H.  583. 

25  Rohricht,  op.  cit.  786. 


UNDER  ISLAM  1 33 

city  was  taken  by  the  Christians,  who  burnt  the  city  and 
killed  all  Muslims  who  would  not  pervert  to  the  faith  of 
Christ.20  In  1244  upon  the  frightful  invasion  of  the  Kha- 
rezmians  (Khwarizmians)  the  city  was  taken  by  the  Egyp- 
tian allies  of  the  invaders  after  the  battle  of  Gaza.2T  With 
this  event  we  may  equate  the  notice  of  the  Samaritan 
chronicles  to  the  effect  that  in  the  pontificate  of  the  priest 
who  died  in  1253,  an  insolent  people  came  from  the  east, 
took  the  land  of  Canaan,  killed  a  great  number  of  people  at 
Shechem,  and  carried  off  many  men,  women  and  children, 
along  with  the  heir  to  the  priesthood,  to  Damascus,  where 
they  were  redeemed  by  their  coreligionists  in  that  city,  al- 
though only  a  small  number  actually  returned.28  Or,  dis- 
regarding the  Samaritan  dates,  the  invasion  may  be  iden- 
tified with  that  of  Hulagu's  Mongols  in  1259,  when  Nablus 
fell  into  the  hands  of  those  hordes.29 

We  now  come  to  the  period  of  the  triumph  of  the  Egyp- 
tian Mamluks  in  Syria,  which,  beginning  with  the  over- 
throw of  the  Mongol  hordes  at  En-Jalut  in  1260,  reached 
its  zenith  in  the  destruction  of  the  Christian  power  through- 
out Syria.  Baibars,  the  fifth  Mamluk  Sultan  (1260-1277), 
waged  a  relentless  war  of  many  campaigns  against  the 
Christians  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  destroyed  their  sacred 
places.  Along  with  Nazareth  and  Tabor,  Shechem  also 
fell  under  his  fanatical  fury,  and  we  learn  of  his  deportation 
of  the  Christian  citizens  of  the  city  to  Damascus  in  1261.30 
Under  him  and  his  successors  the  land  was  frightfully  rav- 
aged, brigands  were  rampant,  and  all  social  conditions  were 
destroyed.31     One    after    another    the    Christian    strong- 

26  Wilken,  op.  cit.  vi,  626;  Rohricht,  op.   cit.  854   (on   Makrizi's  au- 
thority). 

27  Wilken,   op.   cit.  vi,  646;    Rohricht,  op.   cit.  866    (depending  upon 
Makrizi)  ;  A.  Miiller,  Der  Islam,  ii,  i66ff. 

28  Chron.  Neub.  451 ;  Chron.  Adlcr,  99. 

29  Rohricht,  op.  cit.  910 ;  so  Adler  in  his  note. 

30  Rohricht,   op.  cit.   917. 

31  Wilken,  op.  cit.  vii,  461,  464. 


134  THE  SAMARITANS 

holds  of  Caesarea,  Arsuf,  Ramie,  Joppa,  Antioch,  fell  to 
Baibars;  his  great  successor,  Kalaun,  took  Tripolis  in  1289, 
and  the  crowning  triumph  was  gained  by  the  fall  of  Acco 
to  Ashraf  (Khalil)  in  1291  ;  this  overwhelming  calamity 
for  the  Christians  was  followed  up  by  the  immediate  sub- 
mission of  Beirut,  Tyre,  Sidon,  indeed  of  all  the  Christian 
citadels.  We  have  here  to  realize  that  these  sieges,  fol- 
lowed by  awful  massacres,  and  as  in  the  case  of  Caesarea, 
even  by  the  destruction  of  the  cities,  involved  the  wealthy 
Samaritan  colonies  settled  in  them.  Probably  the  original 
communities  were  annihilated,  subsequent  times  of  peace 
bringing  back  for  commercial  purposes  the  small  colonies 
which  we  later  find  in  those  places.  Only  Damascus  and 
Egypt  were  left  as  places  offering  security  from  the  fright- 
ful anarchy  of  the  age.  The  Chronicle  Adler  has  some 
brief  notes  (p.  99)  upon  the  conquests  of  these  monarchs, 
naming  Baibars,  and  referring  to  a  sultan  of  Egypt,  who 
took  Antioch,  Tripolis,  Beirut  —  who  would  therefore  be 
a  composition  of  Kalaun  and  Ashraf.  Then  the  Muslims, 
the  chronicler  proceeds  to  relate,  came  to  Nablus,  expelled 
the  Christians  and  destroyed  their  churches.  Further  they 
took  away  from  the  Samaritans  their  venerable  "  Syna- 
gogue of  the  Field,"  the  present  Chizn  Yakub,  and  demol- 
ished all  their  other  edifices,  so  that  the  sect  was  greatly 
.afflicted.  No  more  special  information  concerning  the  for- 
tunes of  Nablus  are  preserved  for  the  period  of  the  Mamluk 
dominion  in  Egypt  (to  15 16),  except  that  for  the  age  of 
Othman  I.  {circa  1300)  we  read  (Chron.  Adler,  100),  of  a 
governor  ("caliph")  Yarok  at  Shechem,  who  was  killed 
by  his  enemies,  whereupon  the  Samaritans  recovered  their 
confiscated  synagogue;  but  the  Muslims  soon  reasserted 
themselves,  and  turned  the  sacred  place  into  a  mosque. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  modern  history  of  the  Samari- 
tans, we  may  observe  here  the  information  concerning  them 
given  by  the  mediaeval  Arabic  historians  and  geographers. 


UNDER  ISLAM  1 35 

The  bulk  of  the  longer  sections  upon  the  subject  is  devoted 
to  legendary  history  of  the  sect  drawn  mostly  from  Jewish 
sources,  although  Makrizi  seems  to  have  followed  the  Sa- 
maritan legends ;  but  the  Arabs  add  nothing  to  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  early  history.  Their  notes  on  the  religion  of 
the  Samaritans  are  valuable  for  purposes  of  chronology, 
but  do  not  otherwise  substantially  enlarge  our  information ; 
this  material,  with  special  reference  to  the  Dosithean  sect, 
is  treated  elsewhere.32  In  many  cases  the  information 
seems  to  have  been  borrowed  with  indifferent  care,  and  at 
times  the  sect  is  even  ignored  in  the  description  of  Nablus. 

Yakubi  (writing  in  891)  says  that  Nablus  contains 
Arabs,  foreigners  and  Samaritans.33  The  distinguished 
historian  Masudi,  writing  in  943,  says  in  his  Meadows  of 
Gold34  that  "  the  Samaritans  inhabit  the  districts  of  Pales- 
tine and  the  Jordan,   such  as  the  well-known  city ,35 

which  is  between  Ramie  and  Tiberias,  and  other  places, 
and  finally  the  city  of  Nablus ;  but  the  most  part  of  them  live 
in  the  latter  city.  They  have  a  mountain  called  Tur-berik  ;3G 
the  Samaritans  pray  upon  this  mountain,"  etc.  Istakhri 
writes  (95 1)37  that  Nablus  is  the  city  of  the  Samaritans 
and  they  possess  no  other  cities  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
The  source  of  his  information  is  made  clear  in  the  next  sen- 
tence — "  the  people  of  Jerusalem  say  so."38     Al-Biruni  (d. 

32  See  Chap.  XIII,  §  1. 

33  Quoted  by  Le  Strange.  Palestine  under  the  Moslems,  511.  This 
work  gives,  pp.  511-514,  full  quotations  from  the  Arabic  geographers 
who  treat  of  Nablus. 

34  See  de  Sacy,  Chrestomathie  arabc,  i,  342. 

35  De  Sacy  gives  two  readings,  b'ara,  and  b'ary,  and  translates 
"  comme  Ara."     Can  Gaza  be  intended  ? 

36  The  Samaritan  name  for  Gerizim,  now  called  Jebel  et-Tur,  "  the 
Mount  of  the  Hill." 

37  Le  Strange,  ibid. 

38  Ibn  Chaukal  (978)  repeats  Istakhri,  and  Mukaddasi,  although,  or 
perhaps,  because  he  was  Jerusalem-born,  ignores  the  Samaritans  in  his 
mention  of  Nablus.  Also  Ibn  Batuta  omits  mention  of  the  Samaritans, 
although  he  visited  Nablus  in  1326. 


136  THE  SAMARITANS 

1048)  says39  that  most  of  the  Samaritans  are  found  in 
Nablus,  and  that  most  of  their  synagogues  are  there. 

In  the  Xllth  Century  Shahrastani  (d.  1 153),  in  his  treat- 
ment of  the  Samaritans  in  his  Book  of  the  Religions,40 
says  that  they  are  people  who  inhabit  al-Mukaddasi  (i.  e. 
the  name  of  Jerusalem,  which  the  Samaritans  apparently 
stole),  and  some  cities  of  Egypt.  Idrisi  (1154)  repeats 
Istakhri.41  Ali  of  Herat  (1173)  says42  that  the  Samaritans 
are  very  numerous  at  Nablus.  Yakut,  writing  in  1225,43 
notes  that  Nablus  is  inhabited  by  the  Samaritans,  who  live  in 
this  place  alone,  and  go  elsewhere  only  for  the  purpose  of 
trade  or  advantage.  He  also  observes  that  they  call  their 
town  al-Quds  (cf.  Shahrastani,  above).  Dimashki  {circa 
1300)  gives  an  interesting  account44  of  Nablus,  its  beauty 
and  commerce,  and  describing  the  sacrifices  of  the  Samari- 
tans he  says  that  "  there  are  the  two  mountains,  Jabal  Zaita 
[the  Mount  of  Olives],  to  which  the  Samaritans  make  their 
pilgrimage."  Further  he  adds,  "  In  no  other  city  are  there 
as  many  Samaritans  as  there  are  here,  for  in  all  the  other 
cities  of  Palestine  together  there  are  not  of  the  Samaritans  a 
thousand  souls."  This  is  interesting  testimony,  coming  from 
a  Damascene  writer,  at  a  time  when  we  know  the  Damascus 
colony  existed.  Finally  Makrizi  adds  to  the  notice  that 
most  of  the  Samaritans  live  in  Nablus,  the  information  that 
they  are  also  found  in  large  numbers  in  the  towns  of  Syria.45 

To  these  Arabic  notices  is  to  be  added  the  information 
gained  by  a  few  mediaeval  Jewish  travellers.  The  first  of 
these  is  the  famous  Benjamin  of  Tudela  who  visited  Pales- 

39  Quoted  by  Makrizi ;  see  de  Sacy  op.  cit.  305. 

40  Cureton's  text,  i,  170;  Haarbriicker's  translation,  i,  257.    Abu'l  Fida 
adds  nothing  to  what  he  draws  from  Shahrastani. 

41  Le  Strange,  /.  c.     But  in  another  place  he  refers  to  a  Samaritan 
colony  in  the  Red  Sea;  see  below,  p.  151. 

4-  Le  Strange,  /.  c. 

43  Ibid. 

**  Ibid. 

45  De  Sacy,  op.  cit.  i,  304. 


UNDER  ISLAM  137 

tine  in  1163.  He  found  at  Csesarea  200  Kuthim;  "these 
are  the  Jews  of  Shomron,  who  are  called  Samaritans."46 
At  Nablus,  "  where  there  are  no  Jews,"  the  Samaritans 
number  about  one  thousand.47  At  New  Ashkelon  the  same 
traveller  found  300  of  the  sect,  and  in  Damascus  400,  who, 
he  remarks,  live  in  peace  with  the  Karaites  there,  number- 
ing 100,  although  the  two  sects  do  not  intermarry.48 

An  account  of  the  Samaritans  in  Egypt  is  given  by  a 
Jew,  Meshullam  b.  Menahem,  who  made  a  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem in  1480.49  According  to  this  traveller  he  found  in 
Egypt,  presumably  at  Cairo,  along  with  800  Jewish  and 
100  Karaite  families,  50  Samaritan  families  ("heads  of 
houses  ").  He  gives  a  notice  of  their  worship  on  Gerizim, 
quite  at  second-hand,  of  course,  observing  that  they  are  idol- 
aters, and  set  up  a  golden  dove  on  their  holy  mount.  In 
Egypt  they  possessed  a  synagogue.  The  whole  Israelitish 
community,  he  adds,  is  under  the  full  jurisdiction  of  a  Jew- 
ish rabbi.  A  few  years  later  Obadiah  of  Bertinoro  also 
found  fifty  Samaritan  families  at  Cairo,  employed  in  finan- 
cial business  and  as  agents  for  the  government,  so  that  the 
community  was  a  rich  one.50 

46 1  cite  from  M.  N.  Adler,  The  Itinerary  of  Benjamin  of  Tudela, 
in  JQR,  Oct.  1904,  1341. 

47  Such  is  the  reading  adopted  by  the  editor  just  mentioned  upon 
overwhelming  authority  of  the  MSS.  The  reading  that  has  passed 
into  current  use  is  "  one  hundred."  But  this  latter  figure  is  much  too 
small,  when  compared  with  the  information  from  other  contemporary 
sources,  and  the  new  reading  relieves  a  considerable  difficulty.  Benja- 
min proceeds  to  give  a  brief,  accurate  account  of  the  Samaritan  ritual 
and  practices,  and  notes  their  loss  of  the  three  gutturals,  He,  Cheth, 
Ayin,  on  which  he  allegorizes.  The  same  dialecticism  is  noticed  by 
Isaac  Helo  in  his  Itinerary  of  Jerusalem,  1334  (see  Carmoly,  Itine- 
raires  de  la  Terre  Sainte,  252),  and  also  by  Makrizi. 

i8JQR  Jan.  1905,  297,  299. 

49  The  pertinent  portion  of  the  MS,  which  is  at  Florence,  is  published 
by  Heidenheim,  DVJ  iii,  354. 

50  Neubauer,  Zwei  Brief e  Obadiah 's,  in  Jahrb.  f.d.  Geschichte  d. 
Juden,  iii  (1863),  198,  229,  (referred  to  by  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.  27). 
This  civil  combination  of  Jews  and  Samaritans  has  its  parallel  in 
Shechem,  where  Petermann  found  that  the  Samaritan  highpriest  was 
the    responsible    chief   of  the   combined   communities ;    Reisen,   i,   226. 


138  THE  SAMARITANS 

We  thus  see  that  the  mediaeval  notices  of  the  Sama- 
ritans throw  very  little  light  upon  their  actual  condition. 
In  Benjamin  of  Tudela's  day  there  were  about  1000  of  the 
sect  in  the  mother-city,  and  he  enumerates  700  more  in 
other  South-Syrian  cities.  About  1300  Dimashki  estimates 
that  there  are  not  more  than  1000  Samaritans  in  Palestine 
outside  of  Nablus.  Of  the  number  of  the  community  in 
Egypt  for  the  earlier  part  of  the  period,  we  have  no  infor- 
mation. We  do  not  know  when  the  colony  in  Damascus 
was  established,  but  from  1 137  on  we  learn  of  violent  depor- 
tations thither  which  doubtless  swelled  the  local  community, 
while  the  literary  activity  of  the  Damascene  Diaspora  from 
the  Xllth  Century  on  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  Sama- 
ritans shared  in  the  prosperity  of  the  city  which  Nureddin 
and  Saladin  raised  to  an  imperial  metropolis,  and  whose 
glories  lasted  until  the  time  of  Timurlane;  in  this  disaster 
the  Samaritans  must  have  been  equally  involved,  although 
the  colony  survived  the  disaster.  Further,  in  the  opulent 
trading  towns  of  the  coast  small  but  commercially  influen- 
tial communities  existed,  which  probably  avoided  all  public 
display  of  their  religion ;  but  they  prospered  in  worldly  af- 
fairs, that  recompense  which  fortune  so  often  renders  to  the 
small  and  despised  sect.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  during  these  troublous  times,  when  Palestine  was  har- 
ried by  the  wars  of  the  Crusades  and  by  the  many  invasions 
which  depopulated  the  land,  the  settlements  of  the  Diaspora, 
and  especially  that  at  Damascus,  fostered  in  every  way  the 
mother  community,  which  otherwise  would  have  perished. 
We  find  the  direct  line  of  the  highpriestly  family  often  liv- 
ing in  Damascus.  In  one  case,  the  heir  to  the  pontificate 
came  up  from  Damascus  to  assume  his  dignity  (1205) ;  in 

Note  may  be  made  here  of  an  early  but  only  recently  published  Arabic 
work  —  that  of  Ibn  Chazm  of  Spain  (994-1064),  who  wrote  On  Jew- 
ish Sects,  and  treats  of  the  Samaritans.  But  he  gives  no  data  of  im- 
portance except  that  "  the  Samaritans  may  not  go  out  of  Palestine." 
See  Poznanski,  JQR  xvi,  765. 


UNDER  ISLAM 


139 


another  (1538),  a  large  number  of  Samaritans  returned 
from  Damascus  conducting  to  Nablus  the  highpriest  and  his 
son ;  and  we  even  find  the  highpriest  remaining  in  the  Syrian 
capital  (1584).51 

To  carry  on  our  story  into  modern  times  we  find  that 
the  Samaritan  Chronicles  contribute,  outside  of  family  an- 
nals, nothing  to  our  knowledge  of  the  history  between  the 
beginning  of  the  XlVth  Century  and  the  XVIIth  Century. 
But  in  1623-4  occurred  an  ominous  event  in  the  ecclesias- 
tical life  of  the  sect.  The  direct  succession  from  Aaron 
failed,  and  since  that  time  priests  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  of  the 
house  of  Uzziel  son  of  Kohath,  have  officiated  at  the  sacred 
rites.52  The  correspondence  with  the  Europeans,  which  be- 
gan in  1590,  reveals  no  political  details  of  the  sect,  except 
their  persecution  by  the  "  Ishmaelites  "  and  their  poverty, 
for  which  they  persistently  ask  the  alms  of  their  coreligion- 
ists in  Europe. 

For  the  first  notice  of  Ottoman  rule  over  the  Samaritans 
we  learn  of  oppressions  and  confiscations  of  lands,  especially 
of  springs,  occurring  in  the  reign  of  Mohammed  IV.  ( 1648- 
1687). 53  In  the  following  century,  under  Machmud  I. 
( 1 730-1 754),  the  Samaritans  purchased  from  the  Muslims 
a  piece  of  ground  on  Gerizim  for  their  sacred  rites  ;54  we 
may  assume  that  this  was  one  incident  in  the  long  history 

51  Chron.  Neub.  451,  465,  454. 

52  The  exact  date  is  given  by  Chron.  Neub.  465,  as  A.  H.  1033. 
From  the  Epistles  to  Scaliger  we  know  that  the  Aaronic  line  still 
existed  in  1500.  The  failure  of  the  succession  is  indirectly  admitted 
in  the  Epistle  of  1672  (de  Sacy,  N.  et  E.  179),  and  directly  in  the 
Epistle  of  1675  (of  which  only  a  fragment  is  preserved),  wherein  it 
is  prayed  that  the  Europeans  send  them  a  priest  of  the  race  of 
Phineas  (N.  et  E.  219).  But  this  fact  has  been  conveniently  oblit- 
erated in  the  memory  of  the  modern  Samaritans ;  the  Levitical  priest 
who  acknowledged  his  descent  from  Uzziel  to  de  Sacy  in  1820  (N. 
et  E.  152),  gave  a  full  Aaronic  pedigree  for  himself  in  his  Arabic 
memorial  to  the  French  government  in  1842  (Barges,  Les  Samari- 
tains,  73). 

53  Chron.  Adler,  106. 

54  Op.  cit.   108. 


140  THE  SAMARITANS 

of  the  attempts  of  the  sect  to  retain  its  holy  ground  and  of 
their  masters  to  keep  them  out  of  it  or  to  make  them  pay 
for  the  privilege,  which  in  a  few  years  would  be  annulled, 
whereupon  the  struggle  began  again.  In  this  case  the  pur- 
chase is  said  to  have  been  made  by  a  benevolent  member 
of  the  community,  and  doubtless  the  persistence  of  the  sect 
into  modern  times  is  directly  due  to  the  charm  of  gold, 
which  the  Samaritans,  few  as  they  were,  knew  how  to 
amass.  A  local  edict  of  1772  enforced  several  restrictive 
and  shameful  regulations  against  the  sect.55 

It  is  pitiful  to  record  the  fact  that  the  XlXth  Century 
brought  upon  the  Samaritans  troubles,  along  with  the  threat 
of  violent  extinction,  such  as  they  had  not  experienced  since 
the  wars  of  the  Crusaders  and  the  Mamluks.  We  learn  that 
for  25  years  preceding  1810  the  sect  was  restrained  from 
its  worship  on  the  holy  mount,56  but  it  was  able  to  renew 
its  sacred  functions  by  1820.57  For  this  period  we  have 
the  graphic  memoir  of  the  Samaritan  refugee,  Jacob  esh- 
Shelaby,5S  who  records  in  detail  the  wretched  plight  of  the 
Samaritans.  Because  of  the  notoriously  violent  character 
of  the  Muslim  population  of  Nablus,  it  has  been  the  custom 
of  the  Ottoman  government  to  appoint  as  Mutesellim  or 
governor  only  a  native  Arab,  who  is  nominated  from  one 
of  four  rival  families.  In  the  bloody  struggles  which  now 
took  place  among  these  factions  the  Samaritans  were  be- 
tween the  upper  and  nether  millstone,  and  their  sorry  condi- 
tion was  aggravated  by  the  Syrian  wars  of  Mohammed  Ali 
of  Egypt,  with  or  against  whom  the  rival  parties  took  sides. 
That  remarkable  man's  son  and  general,  Ibrahim,  took 
Nablus  by  the  sword  in  1832,  but  found  it  impossible  to  re- 
press the  defiant  Arabs.  According  to  the  Chronicle  Adler, 
the  Samaritans  shared  in  the  relief  which  Egyptian  rule 

65  Mills,  Nablus,  279. 
°6  JV.  ct  E.  126. 

57  Ibid.,  157,  161. 

58  In  Rogers,  Notices  of  the  Modem  Samaritans,  1855. 


o 


UNDER  ISLAM  141 

brought  to  the  inhabitants  of  Syria,  a  statement  corrobo- 
rated by  Shelaby's  notice  that  in  1832  the  sect  again  renewed 
its    pilgrimage    to   Gerizim.     In    1841    a   conspiracy   was 
formed  to  murder  all  the  Samaritans;  their  enemies  were 
not  appeased  with  the  gift  of  the  Samaritan  wealth,  and 
Shelaby  gives  credit  to  the  chief  rabbi  of  the  Jewish  com- 
munity  in   Jerusalem   for  issuing   a   certificate   that   "  the 
Samaritan  people  is  a  branch  of  the  Children  of  Israel,  who 
acknowledge  the  truth  of  the  Tora."     This  generous  testi- 
monial satisfied  the  fanatical  Muslims,  because  it  showed 
that  the  Samaritans  had  a  right  to  Islam's  protection  ex- 
tended to  the  "  Peoples  of  the  Book."59     The  persecutions 
induced  the  community  to  address  an  appeal  in  1842  to  the 
French  government,  composed  in  a  Hebrew  and  an  Arabic 
document ;  but  for  purposes  of  state,  Louis  Philippe  did  not 
even  publish  the  documents,  and  they  were  not  brought  to 
light  until  some  years  later.00     According  to  Barges,  who 
visited  Nablus  in  1853,  the  Samaritans  said  they  had  been 
restrained  from  Gerizim  for  80  years;  this  is  of  course  an 
exaggeration,   though   it  represented  the  truth   for   recent 
years.     Petermann,  who  visited  the  Samaritans  in  the  same 
year,  did  not  receive  any  such  information,  and  himself  at- 
tended the  Passover  on  Gerizim.     In  1854  the  British  gov- 
ernment was  induced  by  an  appeal  of  the  Samaritans  to 
make  representations  on  their  behalf  to  the  Porte,  and  the 
bearer    of    this    document,    the    Jacob    above-mentioned, 
brought  with  him  also  an  appeal  to  the  British  public,  the  re- 
sult of  which  was  the  arousing  of  the  interest  of  such  men 
as  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury  and  the  collection  of  funds  for 
the  oppressed  sect.     Through  the  friendly  notice  of  Euro- 
pean governments,  especially  of  England  and  its  consuls  at 
Jerusalem,  the  Samaritans  have  been  preserved  from  the 

59  Ibid.,  29. 

60  The  documents  were  published  in  Les  annates  de  philosophic 
chreticnne,  1853,  and  the  Hebrew  document  by  Barges,  op.  cit.  64; 
cf.  p.  37- 


142  THE  SAMARITANS 

violent  annihilation  that  threatened  them.  But  the  wealth 
they  possessed  is  gone,  and  they  have  become  a  community 
of  alms-seekers,  forced  to  sell  their  sacred  manuscripts  for 
subsistence.61 

61  For  the  bloody  commotions  which  vexed  Palestine  in  the  last 
century,  see  Macalister  and  Masterman,  A  History  of  the  Doings  of 
the  Fellahin,  etc.,  PEFQS  1905,  Oct.  et  seq.  This  work  also  frequently 
refers  to  Finn,  Stirring  Times,  which  throws  much  light  upon  the 
local  troubles. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE   GEOGRAPHICAL   DISTRIBUTION   OF  THE 
SAMARITANS. 

§    I.       THE  SAMARITANS  AT  HOME.1 

In  Chapter  II.  we  observed  that  the  land  of  Samaria  as 
a  geographical  entity  was  identical  with  the  Highlands  of 
Ephraim.  It  is  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  valley  of 
Esdraelon,  to  which  also  belongs  the  plain  of  Dothan,  with 
its  deep  inset  into  the  hill-country.  On  the  east  is  the  Ghor, 
or  valley  of  the  Jordan,  the  plain  of  Beth-shean  having  been 
distinguished  from  the  land  of  Ephraim  politically  as  well 
as  geographically  from  earliest  times.2  On  the  west  the 
line  of  the  lowlands  marked  the  political  boundary,  the  Phoe- 
nicians and  Philistines  being  in  possession  of  the  coast,  while 
Mount  Carmel,  though  a  spur  of  the  Samaritan  hill-coun- 
try, was  cut  off  politically  by  the  highways  which  crossed 
it.  Only  on  the  south  was  there  an  uncertain  border.  There 
a  long  neck  of  highland  connects  Mount  Ephraim  with 
Mount  Juda,  cleft  on  either  side  by  deep  wadies,  but  withal 
presenting  no  one  strategic  line  of  boundary.  G.  A.  Smith 
has  graphically  discussed  this  debatable  frontier,3  and  points 

1  See  Juynboll,  Hist.  Sam.  37;  Neubauer,  La  geographie  du  Talmud, 
1868,  p.  168;  Schiirer,  GJV ,  §§  23,  24;  E.  Meyer,  Entstehung  des 
Judenthums,  1896,  p.  105 ;  Smith,  HG  cc.  xii,  xvii ;  Holscher,  Paliis- 
tina  in  der  persischen  und  hellenistischen  Zeit,  1903 ;  Conder,  Samar- 
itan Topography,  PEFQS  1876,  p.  182  (with  extensive  treatment  of 
the  geographical  references  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  and  the  Chronicle 
N  eubauer) . 

-  See  1  Sam.  31,  10.  It  received  a  Scythian  colony  in  the  Vllth 
Century,  and  later  became  a  member  of  the  Decapolis. 

3  Op.  cit.  c.  xiii. 

143 


144  THE  SAMARITANS 

out  that  there  were  three  possible  lines,  each  of  which  be- 
came effective  according  to  the  comparative  strength  of  the 
two  political  divisions  of  Israel.  Our  present  interest  in 
this  question  begins  with  the  Post-exilic  age. 

As  Meyer  points  out,  those  who  worked  on  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem,  according  to  the  list  in  NeJi.  3,  were  not  settled 
farther  north  than  Gibeon  and  the  uncertain  Meronot.4  Ac- 
cording to  Neh.  11,  25ff  the  Jews  had  pushed  in  the  same 
age  towards  Joppa  as  far  as  Ono,  Hadid,  Lydda,  a  note 
disputed  by  Meyer  and  Holscher,  who  hold  that  this  datum 
represents  the  geography  of  the  Chronicler;  at  all  events 
Sanballat  hailed  from  Beth-horon,  and  Ono  in  the  Shephela 
belonged  to  his  sphere  of  influence  (6,  3).  Thus  in  the 
first  part  of  the  Post-exilic  period  the  district  of  Samaria 
lay  close  up  under  Jerusalem.  But  the  powerful  Jewish  ex- 
pansion began  to  drive  back  this  northern  boundary,  as  we 
learn  from  the  Chronicler  and  from  the  colonization  of  ex- 
tensive districts  in  the  south  of  Samaria,  witnessed  to  in  the 
lid  Century  B.  C.5 

In  the  Maccabsean  age  the  northerly  expansion  of  Juda- 
ism received  the  political  endorsement  of  the  Syrian  king- 
dom ;  the  three  considerable  cantons  of  Aphairema, —  proba- 
bly the  city  of  Ephraim  (Jn.  11,  54), —  Lydda,  and  Rama- 
thaim,  perhaps  the  modern  Beit  Rima,  NE  of  Lydda  — 
were  formally  annexed  to  Judaea.0  This  large  acquisition 
of  territory  pushed  the  Jewish  boundary  far  into  the  interior 
of  Samaria,  the  place  of  Borkeos  which  Josephus  notes  as 

4  Op.  cit.  105 ;  cf.  Holscher,  op.  cit.  26. 

5  Holscher  holds,  op.  cit.  30,  that  in  the  late  Persian  age  Juda  ac- 
tually controlled  Samaria,  adducing  the  Book  of  Judith,  the  traditions 
of  which  belong  to  the  age  of  Ochus,  while  its  action  is  laid  in  Sama- 
ria. (Cf.  Torrey's  identification  of  Bethulia  with  Shechem,  JAOS 
xx,  160;  also  such  passages  as  Zech.  11,  4ft.  Cf.  the  story  of  Joseph's 
administration  as  tax-farmer  over  Samaria,  Josephus,  AJ  xii.  4.) 

6lSee  above,  p.  79.  For  the  data,  see  1  Mac.  11,  2off :  Josephus, 
AJ  xiii,  4,  9.  Cf.  Schiirer,  GJV  i,  233,  and,  for  the  due  appreciation 
of  the  extent  of  the  annexed  territory,  Holscher,  op.  cit.  74. 


AT  HOME  145 

the  boundary  in  his  day  doubtless  marking  the  extent  of 
that  annexation. 

For  the  1st  Christian  Century  we  gain  more  definite  de- 
tails of  the  boundaries  of  Samaria,  which  are  described  with 
much  exactness  by  Josephus.  Samaria  lies,  says  that  his- 
torian,7 "  between  Judaea  and  Galilee ;  it  begins  at  a  village 
that  is  in  the  Great  Plain,  called  Ginaia,  and  ends  at  the 
Akrabene  toparchy."  A  little  farther  on  he  adds  that  on 
the  boundary  between  Samaria  and  Judaea  lies  the  so-called 
village  Anuath-Borkeos.8  Now  Ginaia  is  the  En-gannim 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  modern  Jenin,  lying  on  the  south- 
ern slope  of  Esdraelon.9  Akrabene,  or  Akrabatta,  is  the 
modern  Akrabe,  8  mi.  SE  of  Shechem.  Borkeos  is  now 
generally  identified  with  Berkit  to  the  WSW  of  Akrabe, 
in  the  Wady  Ishar;  Anuath  has  not  yet  been  located.10 
These  data  place  the  frontier  for  Josephus's  age  along  the 
line  of  the  Wady  Ishar,  which,  as  Smith  observes,  is  the 
northernmost  of  the  possible  natural  boundaries  between 
Judaea  and  Samaria.  The  Jewish  boundary  had  thus  ad- 
vanced to  within  seven  miles  of  Shechern  and  included  the 
greater  part  of  the  ancient  land  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.11 
Moreover  the  western  boundary  of  Samaria  was  thrust  back, 
as  we  have  seen,  by  the  loss  of  the  canton  of  Ramathaim, 
while  the  Jewish  expansion  to  the  northwest  included  the 
important  cities  of  Modin,  Lydda,  Ono,  Hadid,  and 
stretched  as  far  as  Antipatris.12 

7  BJ  hi,  3,  4-5.  It  is  uncertain  just  what  was  the  relation  of  the 
city  of  Samaria  to  this  district;  Holscher,  op  cit.  97,  following  Mar- 
quardt,  considers  it  to  have  been  a  member  of  the  Decapolis. 

8  Conder  has  a  different  translation,  PEFQS  1876,  p.  67. 

9  It  also  appears  as  a  border  town  in  Gittin,  vii,  6.  The  Gemara 
ad  loc.  also  names  Kefar  Outhenai  as  on  the  border.  Josephus  nar- 
rates a  bloody  fight  as  occurring  here  between  Samaritans  and  Jewish 
pilgrims,  AJ  xx,  6,  1. 

10  The  English  Survey  Map  follows  Conder's  translation  in  widely 
separating  Anuath  and  Borkeos. 

11  Mount  Sartaba  was  also  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews ;  Rosh-ha- 
Shana,  ii,  2. 

12  See  Neubauer,  op.  cit.  86. 

10 


146  THE  SAMARITANS 

Thus  by  the  1st  Century  political  Samaria  had  very  much 
shrunk  from  its  original  equivalence  with  the  Highlands  of 
Ephraim.  Between  En-gannim  and  the  Wady  Ishar  is  a 
distance  of  25  miles,  between  the  Jordan  and  Sharon  about 
32  miles;  but  from  this  limited  territory  we  must  exclude 
the  Jordan  valley  and  a  considerable  Jewish  territory  in  the 
southwest. 

Within  this  circumscribed  region  we  have  no  means  of 
ascertaining  how  numerous  or  widespread  the  Samaritans 
were.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  they  were  found  in 
the  one  Hellenistic  city  of  the  district,  Samaria-Sebaste. 
Their  metropolis  was  Shechem-Neapolis,  and  in  this  city 
and  the  villages  of  its  neighborhood  must  have  lain  their 
centre  of  population.  The  Talmud  throws  very  little  light 
upon  the  localities  of  the  Samaritan  sect.13  We  learn  from 
it  of  two  places  with  the  name  of  Fondeka,  i.e.  "  Inn," 
namely  that  of  Ammuda,  and  that  of  Tibta  towards  Kefar- 
saba,  i.e.  Antipatris.  There  are  still  two  localities  with  the 
same  component  to  be  found  in  Samaria :  Fendakumia 
(Pentacomia),  4  mi.  N  of  Samaria,  and  Fonduk,  7  mi.  SW. 
We  also  learn  of  several  Samaritan  villages  lying  on  the 
Jewish  border :  "  The  wine  of  Kador  is  prohibited  because 
of  the  proximity  of  Kefar-Pagesh ;  that  of  Borgata  be- 
cause of  Birat-Sariqa ;  that  of  En-Kushit  (i.e.  the  Samari- 
tan Spring,  or  Spring  of  the  Samaritaness),  because  of 
Kefar-Shalem."14  Borgata  is  doubtless  the  Borkeos  of  Jo- 
sephus ;  Salem  can  hardly  be  the  town  east  of  Shechem,  but 
rather  the  Salem  on  the  Jordan,  which  Josephus  places  8 
mi.  S  of  Beth-shean. 

The  few  other  places  connected  with  the  Samaritans  by 
Josephus  and  others  are  Tirathana,  near  Gerizim;15  Gittaim, 

13  Ibid.,  172. 

14  Aboda  Zara  ler.  44d.  The  Babylonian  parajlel,  Ab.  Z.  31a,  has 
the  following  variants:  Ogdor,  Parshai,  En-Kushi.  Cf.  Masseket  Ku- 
tim,  25,  which  reads  Pansha  for  Pagesh. 

15  AJ  xviii,  4,  1 :  probably  the  modern  Tire,  4  mi.  SW  of  Shechem ; 
Buhl,  Geographic,  200,  203. 


AT  HOME  147 

the  birthplace  of  Simon  Magus;16  and  Sychar,  Jn.  4,  5, 
generally  identified  with  the  modern  Askar.17 

There  remains  for  investigation  the  abundant  geograph- 
ical material  contained  in  the  Samaritan  Chronicles,  espe- 
cially that  of  the  Chronicle  Neubaner.  Unfortunately, 
partly  because  of  the  corrupt  tradition  of  the  text,  and  partly 
because  the  genealogical  lists  give  no  means  of  identifying 
the  localities,  our  results  must  be  very  incomplete.  It  will 
be  worth  while  however,  although  an  exhaustive  list  is  by 
no  means  pretended,  to  learn  from  some  of  the  places  that 
may  be  identified  the  extent  of  the  Samaritan  settlements.18 

In  the  close  neighborhood  of  Shechem  we  find  mention  of 
Salem,  also  apparently  called  Great  Salem ;  Elon  More ; 
Askar;  4  mi.  N,  Tira-luza,  i.  e.  Tulluza;  8  mi.  E,  Dabarin, 
if  the  modern  Ain  ad-Dabbur ;  to  the  south  we  can  recognize 
Awurta;  Bet-porik,  i.  e.  Pherka;  Akrabatta;  within  10  mi. 
SW,  Ya'suf,  Marda,  Timnat-heres,  Zaita  (there  is  another 
Zaita  to  the  W)  ;  Kurawa  (to  be  placed  here,  and  not  at  foot 
of  Sartaba)  ;  to  the  W,  Tul-karam,  Kuryat-Hajja  (8  mi.), 
Sarafin  (9  mi.),  Afra-Piraton, —  either  the  Piraton  to  the 
west,  or  the  Ophra-Ferata,  6  mi.  SW  of  Shechem.  In 
Bit-jan  we  may  identify  En-gannim.  One  of  Baba  Rabba's 
Wise  Men  "  had  his  limit  from  the  Great  Meadow,"  i.e.  the 
Great  Plain  of  Josephus,  the  modern  Merj  ibn  Amir.19 
Taking  these  data  as  an  average,  we  find  that  the  Samari- 
tans in  their  native  land  were  centred  about  Shechem  within 

16  See  Chap.  XIII,  note. 

17  For  the  discussion  of  this  problem,  see  above,  p.  20.  There  is 
nothing  to  show  that  the  Talmudic  En-Socher  was  a  Samaritan 
locality;  but  see  Neubauer,  op.  cit.   170. 

18  Conder  in  his  article  Samaritan  Topography  has  treated  these 
geographical  references  at  length.  The  following  identifications, 
which  were  worked  out  before  I  saw  Conder's  study,  and  which  I  let 
stand  for  what  they  may  be  worth,  concern  only  the  seats  of  the 
Samaritans. 

19  Abu'l  Faih,  130.  Kefar-sabbala,  ibid.,  may  be  Kefar-saba,  i.  e. 
Antipatris. 


148  THE  SAMARITANS 

a  radius  of  eight  or  ten  miles ;  the  remainder  of  their  terri- 
tory was  probably  largely  occupied  by  Jews  and  Pagans. 

§    2.       THE  SAMARITANS   IN  DIASPORA.20 

The  commercial  tendencies  of  the  Samaritans  early  gave 
them  an  impulse  westward  to  the  opulent  cities  of  the  coast, 
especially  to  the  metropolis  Cassarea,  and  to  the  towns  of 
Philistia;  the  early  rise  of  the  Egyptian  colony  must  have 
made  the  latter  district  a  well-used  thoroughfare  for  them. 
Accordingly  we  find  that  in  the  early  centuries  of  our  era 
the  Samaritans  pushed  southwest  into  the  flourishing  region 
of  the  one-time  territory  of  Dan;  this  movement  must  have 
been  subsequent  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state,  which 
left  the  Samaritans  a  free  foot  in  their  expansion.  Horon 
is  referred  to  in  the  Chronicles  as  a  Samaritan  locality,  and 
the  inscriptions  at  Emmaus-Nicopolis  reveal  their  presence 
in  that  place.21  We  learn  of  them  at  Lydda  at  the  time  of 
the  Muslim  conquest,22  and  later  in  the  Fatimide  capital 
of  Palestine,  Ramie,  they  formed  an  appreciable  part  of 
the  population,  while  its  suburb,  Beit-Dagon,  was  a  Samari- 
tan town.23  On  the  coast  we  find  them  at  Akko;  at  Cae- 
sarea,  where  they  w7ere  numerous  enough  to  carry  on  bloody 
feuds  with  Jews  and  Christians;24  at  Arsuf ;  Joppa;  Ashke- 
lon;  Gaza  and  its  port  Maiumas.     Gaza  remained  the  chief 

20  Cf.  the  data  from  Jewish  and  Arabian  sources  given  in  Chapter 
VI ;  also  Le  Strange,  Palestine   Under  the  Moslems,  1890. 

21  See  Chap.  XIV,  §  4.  A  remark  of  R.  Abbahu,  in  Yebamot  Jcr. 
9d :  "  Thirteen  cities  reverted  to  the  Samaritans  in  the  days  of  persecu- 
tion," may  refer  to  this  Samaritan  expansion.  Frankel,  Einfluss  dcr 
paldstinensischcn  Exegese,  245,  refers  the  note  to  the  Hadrianic  per- 
secution;  but  see  Appel,  op.  cit.  60;   Taglicht,  op.  cit.   19. 

22  See  the  list  of  towns  in  Abu'l  Path,  179. 

23  So  the  early  geographers,  Yakubi  and  Mukaddasi ;  Le  Strange, 
op.  cit.  403,  405.  Clermont  Ganneau,  in  his  Archaeological  Researches, 
ii,  490,  notes  that  the  Life  of  Peter  the  Iberian  (Pctrus  dcr  Iberer, 
59,  114),  of  the  Vth  Century,  records  that  the  town  of  Yebna,  the  Bib- 
lical Jabneel-Jamnia,  was  inhabited  exclusively  by  Samaritans. 

24  See  Chap.  VI,  §  3-  According  to  both  Samaritan  and  Byzantine 
notices   Samaritan  settlements  existed  on  Mt.  Carmel. 


IN  DIASPORA  149 

coastwise  locality  of  the  sect  after  the  destruction  of  the 
more  northerly  cities  in  the  wars  of  the  Crusades.25  Epis- 
tles in  the  Scaliger  and  Huntington  correspondence  were 
written  at  Gaza,  and  the  Chronicle  Neubauer  refers  to  Sa- 
maritans settled  there  in  the  XVIIIth  Century.  These  colo- 
nists, the  same  chronicle  reports,  were  of  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamin. There  is  also  frequent  mention  of  members  of  the 
sect  at  Gerar. 

The  narrative  of  the  uprising  under  Justinian  in  529  is 
witness  to  the  extensive  settlement  of  Samaritans  in  and 
about  Scythopolis.  From  that  point  the  Samaritans  could 
easily  pass  the  fords  of  Jordan  into  Persea,  and  so  Euse- 
bius  notes,  in  his  Onomasticon,  a  Samaritan  town,  Thersila, 
or  Tharsila,  in  this  region,26  which  seems  to  have  been  a 
frequent  place  of  refuge  for  fugitives  and  the  ascetic  sects 
of  the  community.  We  have  already  noted  references  to 
the  Damascene  colony,  which  was  several  times  fed  by 
forcible  deportations,  and  whose  size  and  wealth  are  re- 
ported by  Benjamin  Tudela  and  de  la  Valle,  while  as  we 
have  seen,  it  became  a  second  home  for  the  sect.27  But 
its  members  spread  still  farther  north  through  Syria;  at 
Tyre  (at  least  in  the  case  of  the  distinguished  theolo- 
gian Abu'l  Chasan,  "the  Tyrian");  at  Baal-bek,28  at 
Kefar    Sima    (near    Beirut),29    and    at    Tripoli,    Hamath, 

25  Two  Samaritan  inscriptions  have  been  found  at  Gaza,  along  with 
the  probable  remains  of  a  synagogue ;  see  Chap.  XIV,  §  4.  The 
presence  of  the  sect  in  that  city  about  300  may  be  testified  to  by 
the  prayer  made  just  before  his  death  by  the  martyr  Paul  of  Gaza  at 
Csesarea,  in  behalf  of  the  Samaritans  along  with  other  unbelievers; 
Eusebius,  Mart.  Palcest.  viii,  9. 

26  See  Thomson,  ZDPV  xxvi,  97,  and  for  its  location  the  accompany- 
ing map  by  Guthe. 

27  P.  138.  See  also  Chap.  XIV,  §  4.  for  the  Damascene  inscriptions 
bearing  witness  to  the  wealth  of  the  Samaritan  colony. 

28  Chron.  Neub.  461.  The  Samaritan  scholar  Muhadhdhib  (d.  1227) 
was  vizier  to  a  sultan  of  Baal-bek ;  Wiistenfeld,  Gesch.  d.  arabisch. 
Aerzte,  121. 

29 1  find  I  am  unable  to  verify  my  note  on  this  datum. 


150  THE  SAMARITANS 

and  Aleppo.30  There  is  even  evidence  of  their  presence  in 
Babylonia,  in  the  IVth  Century.31 

There  may  be  noticed  here,  for  what  it  is  worth,  the  in- 
teresting tradition  of  a  diocesan  organization  of  the  Samari- 
tans in  Palestine  established  by  Baba  Rabba  in  the  IVth 
Century.32  A  priest  was  placed  at  the  head  of  each  of  the 
districts  or  dioceses,  which  numbered  twelve,  if  we  include 
the  "  archdiocese  "  of  Shechem,  which  belonged  to  the  high- 
priest.  We  may  suppose  that  these  were  administrative, 
particularly  tithing  districts,  originating  with  the  intention 
of  incorporating  more  closely  into  the  community  the  scat- 
tered bodies  of  Samaritans.     The  districts  are : 

i)   From  Luza  (Telluza)  to  Galilee  on  the  sea. 

2)  A  district  to  Tiberias. 

3)  The  country  E  of  Gerizim  to  the  Jordan. 

4)  From  Kefar-Chalul  to  the  Place  of  Justice  (i.e.  some 
governmental  centre,  not  further  defined). 

5)  From  Horon  to  Philistia. 

6)  From  Gaza  to  the  River  of  Egypt. 

7)  From  "  Good-Mountain  "  to  Csesarea. 

8)  From  the  border  of  Carmel  to  Akko. 

9)  From  Mount  Naker  to  Tyre. 

10)  From  the  river  Lita  (Litany)  to  Sidon  and  the 
gulf(?). 

11)  From  the  mountain  country  of  Galilee  to  the  river 
(the  upper  Jordan?),  to  Lebanon,  and  all  the  villages  about 
that  mountain. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  these  districts  are  listed  according 
to   the   points   of   the   compass,    beginning  with   the   east. 

30  See  the  Liturgy  for  the  Dead,  DVJ  i,  417,  which  belongs  to  the 
time  when  the  Damascene  colony  was  important. 

31  Gittin,  45a;  see  Frankel,  Einftuss  251. 

32Chron.  Neub.  440,  and  Abu' I  Fath,  134;  the  text  of  the  latter  is 
defective  and  corrupt.  In  most  cases  the  Hebrew  personal  names  in 
the  latter  have  pure  Arabic  names  attached  to  them,  indicating  per- 
haps the  purpose  of  a  later  scribe  to  bring  the  hierarchy  up  to  date. 
Conder  gives  the  list  in  PEFOS  1876,  p.  194. 


IN  DIASPORA  151 

Proofs  for  the  early  origin  of  this  document  are  found  in 
the  presence  of  only  Hebrew  names  in  the  earlier  text,  and 
in  the  omission  of  reference  to  Damascus.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served that  Persea  and  Judaea  are  not  included,  so  that  the 
scheme  is  not  a  merely  ideal  allotment  of  the  Holy  Land 
among  the  true  Israel.  That  the  Diaspora  was  found  in 
Galilee  is  proved  by  references  to  the  colonies  at  Safed  and 
Hazor  (Hazorim)  in  the  Arabic  period.33 

We  have  already  noted  the  reports  of  Josephus  and  the 
Samaritan  traditions  concerning  the  Diaspora  in  Egypt.34 
The  sect  seems  to  have  experienced  like  fortunes  to  the 
Jews  in  the  Hellenic  period,  being  drafted  to  the  Greek 
cities  in  the  Nile  valley  by  deportation  or  as  mercenaries, 
and  also  being  attracted  thither  by  the  advantages  of  com- 
merce. There  are  papyrus  references  to  an  Egyptian  vil- 
lage named  Samaria  in  the  Hid  Century  B.  C.35  From  an 
Epistle  of  1808  we  learn  that  the  Samaritans  had  ceased  to 
exist  in  Egypt  for  a  hundred  years;36  but  the  colony  must 
have  failed  much  earlier,  for  in  1616  de  la  Valle  found  at 
Cairo  a  synagogue  with  only  seven  families,  and  Hunting- 
ton, in  the  latter  part  of  the  same  century  learned  on  the 
spot  that  but  one  of  the  sect,  an  old  man,  still  survived.37 

A  curious  note  appears  in  the  geographer  Idrisi  (Xllth 
Century),  who,  in  describing  the  islands  in  the  upper  part 
of  the  Red  Sea,  says  3S  that  "  the  one  called  Samiri  is  in- 
habited by  a  race  of  Samaritan  Jews.  They  can  be  recog- 
nized as  such  because  when  one  wishes  to  injure  another, 
the  latter  says  to  him:  'Do  not  touch  me  (la  misas).' 
They  descend  from  the  Jews  who  worshipped  the  golden 
calf  at  the  time  of  Moses."     This  incorporates  a  frequent 

33DVJ  i,  417. 

34  See  p.  75. 

35  See  Schiirer,  GJV  iii,  24. 

36  N.  et  E.  69.     For  some  mediaeval  references,  see  above,  p.  137. 

37  Juynboll,  Hist.  Sam.  45,  referring  to  the  xxxiiid  Epistle  of  Hunt- 
ington. 

38  Clima,  ii,  §  5 ;  tr.  Jaubert,  i,  135. 


152  THE  SAMARITANS 

Muslim  reference  to  the  Samaritans.39  Such  an  immigra- 
tion to  the  far  south  is  not  improbable  in  view  of  the  ex- 
tensive Jewish  Diaspora  in  Arabia. 

There  is  much  significant  evidence  to  the  effect  that  the 
Samaritans  in  pursuit  of  trade  were  scattered  over  the  west- 
ern world.  Their  inscriptions  have  been  found  at  Athens.40 
Members  of  the  sect  were  extensively  engaged  in  banking 
at  Constantinople,  where  "  Samaritan  "  was  synonymous 
with  "  accountant."41  The  repressive  edicts  of  the  Chris- 
tian emperors  can  best  be  understood  as  directed  especially 
against  the  Samaritans  who  were  spread  over  the  empire 
engaged  in  trade  and  banking,  thus  provoking  the  jealousy 
of  fanatical  Christians.  Indeed  we  learn  by  chance  that 
about  A.  D.  500  there  existed  a  Samaritan  community  in 
Rome.  Cassiodorus  Senator  has  preserved  a  letter  of  the 
emperor  Theodoric  calling  attention  to  a  complaint  made  by 
"  the  people  of  the  Samaritan  superstition,"  who  have  had 
the  effrontery  to  declare  that  the  Church  had  appropriated 
a  building  which  was  once  a  synagogue  of  theirs,  and  to 
demand  their  rights.42  The  capital  may  not  have  been  the 
only  place  in  the  western  world  where  the  hardy  sect  pos- 
sessed its  synagogue. 

But  the  fearful  persecutions  the  Samaritans  have  sus- 
tained have  nearly  accomplished  their  purpose.  According 
to  the  Epistle  of  1808  the  Samaritans  were  to  be  found  only 
at  Nablus  and  Joppa,  and  then  numbered  30  families  and 

39 E.  g.  Koran,  xx.  97.  (The  Koranic  legend  has  it  that  "the  Samar- 
itan" made  the  golden  calf.)  The  Samaritan  fear  of  contact  with 
aliens  is  a  characteristic  of  the  sect.  Biruni  reports  that  they  were 
called  the  La-Mesasiyye,  "  the  Touch-me-nots " ;  de  Sacy,  Chrest. 
arabe,  i,  305,  340.  This  scholar  also  calls  attention  to  the  poet  Muta- 
nabbi's  reference  to  this  Samaritan  characteristic;  Calcutta  ed.,  331; 
de  Bohlen,  Comm.  de  Motenabbio,  116. 

40  Corpus  inscript.  Attic,  nos.  2891-2893. 

41  Edict  ix,  of  Justinian,  c.  2 ;  Osenbrugger,  Corpus  juris  civilis,  iii, 
696,  and  ed.  Bekker,  Pt.  ii,  vol.  ii,  p.  1158:  rov  ye  viroypaQews  ofls 
Sa^apet'ras   Kakoxxri. 

42  Cassiodorus  Senator,  Varies,  iii,  45   (Migne,  lxix,  600). 


IN  DIASPORA  153 

about  200  souls,  equally  divided  between  the  two  towns.43 
To-day  they  are  to  be  found  only  in  their  ancient  holy 
city,  numbering,  as  we  have  seen  above,44  152  souls  of 
whom  nearly  two-thirds  are  males. 

To  sum  up  these  facts,  we  may  judge  that  the  Samari- 
tans enjoyed  their  greatest  expansion  in  numbers  and  im- 
portance under  the  Roman  empire.  But  their  fortunes  be- 
gan to  diminish  through  the  persecutions  of  the  Christian 
establishment,  and  Islam,  at  first  favorable,  ultimately  only 
aggravated  the  downward  course  of  the  fortunes  of  the  sect. 
In  the  first  centuries  of  the  present  millennium,  according  to 
the  few  figures  we  possess,  the  Samaritans  could  have  num- 
bered only  a  few  thousands  in  Syria,  and  in  many  of  the 
places  where  we  find  them  located  the  communities  consisted 
probably  of  not  more  than  the  personelle  and  families  of  a 
few  banking-houses.  With  this  paucity  in  numbers  for  a 
millennium  and  more,  the  existence  of  the  sect  stands  as  an 
additional  proof  of  the  stiff-neckedness,  or  to  use  a  modern 
term,  of  the  "  staying  powers  "  of  the  blood  of  Israel. 

«  N.  et  E.  69. 
**P.  24. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  SAMARITANS  IN  THE  APOCRYPHAL  LIT- 
ERATURE, THE   NEW  TESTAMENT, 
AND   JOSEPHUS. 

In  the  preceding  Chapters  we  have  examined  the  secular 
history  of  the  Samaritans;  it  is  a  story  redolent  of  friction 
and  conflicts  between  them  and  the  Jews  since  the  beginning 
of  the  schism.  The  obscurity  concerning  the  origin  of  the 
northern  sect  has  been  made  evident  in  Chapter  IV;  how- 
ever in  the  Hellenic  period  the  cleft  between  the  two  sects 
had  established  itself,  a  fact  demonstrated  by  John  Hyr- 
canus's  capture  of  Shechem  as  a  hostile  city.  But  it  re- 
mains now,  apart  from  external  politics,  to  investigate  the 
actual  spiritual  relations  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samari- 
tans in  the  three  or  four  centuries  respectively  before  and 
after  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  For  this  study 
the  Samaritan  literature  is  almost  absolutely  worthless  so 
far  as  direct  references  are  concerned,  for  none  of  it  except 
the  Samaritan  edition  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  dated  with 
certainty  earlier  than  the  IVth  Century  A.  C.  We  are 
therefore  thrown  back  upon  the  Judaistic  literature  exclu- 
sively, the  examination  of  which  will  show  what  the  Jews, 
"the  enemies  themselves  being  judges,"  thought  in  that 
period  concerning  the  Samaritans. 

There  appear  to  be  but  two  references  to  that  sect  in  the 
early  non-canonical  literature  of  the  Jews.1  The  one  is 
Ecclus.  50,  25f :  "  With  two  races  is  my  soul  vexed ;  and 
the   third    is    no    nation:  with    the    dwellers    of    Seir    and 

1  For  reference  to  certain  Hellenistic  literature,  see  Chap.  XIV,  §  5. 

154 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  155 

Philistia,  and  with  the  foolish  race  that  sojourns  in  She- 
chem."  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  tone  of  the  writer  is 
one  of  contempt  towards  the  Samaritans.  The  identical 
contemptuous  attitude  appears  in  the  apocryphal  Testament 
of  Levi,  c.  7 :  "  From  this  day  will  Shechem  be  called  the 
City  of  Fools"  (VoAis  doWrwv).2  This  epithet  of  fool  as 
applied  to  the  northern  sectarian  is  further  witnessed  to 
in  the  New  Testament.  In  Jn.  8,  48  the  Jews  are  repre- 
sented as  saying  to  Jesus :  "  Do  we  not  well  say,  Thou 
art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a  devil  ?  "  In  what  sense  was 
Jesus  called  a  Samaritan?  The  answer  has  not  been  satis- 
factorily given.  Commentators  variously  hold  that  the  epi- 
thet refers  to  Jesus'  heresy,  to  his  not  being  a  genuine  son 
of  Abraham  (cf.  v.  39ft:),  or  to  his  hostility  to  the  Jews. 
But  the  context  leads  much  rather  to  the  inference  that 
"  Samaritan  "  means  here  "  fool."  This  comes  out  clearly 
in  the  subsequent  conversation,  v.  5  iff :  "  Verily,  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  if  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never  see  death. 
The  Jews  said  to  him,  Now  we  know  that  thou  hast  a  devil. 
Abraham  is  dead,  and  the  prophets,  and  thou  sayest,"  etc. 
That  is,  their  argument  lies  against  the  utter  absurdity  of 
Jesus'  words.  There  are  thus  three  distinct  references 
from  as  many  quarters  in  which  the  epithet  "  fool  "  appears 
as  a  byword  of  common  application  to  the  Samaritans.  The 
origin  of  the  epithet  is  most  probably  the  contempt  felt  by 
the  Jews  for  the  absurd  pretensions  of  their  rivals.  That 
the  term  was  an  extreme  one,  but  nevertheless  was  used  by 
the  Jews  among  themselves,  is  shown  by  Mt.  5,  22.3 

2  See  Kautzsch,  Apokryphen,  ii,  467.  The  date  of  the  Jewish  basis 
of  the  Testaments  is  uncertain;  Schnapp,  ibid.,  460,  inclines  to  the  1st 
Century  A.  C. 

3  It  must  be  left  an  open  question  whether  there  was  also  a  parano- 
masia  between  the  Hebrew  nabal,  fool,  and  nabel,  fading,  which  oc- 
curs in  the  denunciation  of  Ephraim  in  Is.  28,  I.  The  same  root  is 
used  for  various  other  unpleasant  connotations,  e.  g.  corpse,  or  that 
which  is  morally  corrupt.  This  paranomasia  would  be  parallel  to  that 
which   has  been  suggested    (first,  I   believe,  by   Reland,  Dissertationes 


156  THE  SAMARITANS 

Before  studying  the  scattered  New  Testament  references 
to  Samaria,  it  may  be  convenient  to  examine  the  attitude 
held  towards  them  by  the  great  Jewish  historian  of  the  1st 
Century,  Josephus,  who  has  abundant  opportunity  to  refer 
to  the  Samaritans.  These  appear  in  his  pages  under  that 
name,  and  also  as  Kuthseans  and  Shechemites.  As  Jo- 
sephus was  a  well-informed  man  in  contemporary  affairs, 
and  also  as  he  had  friends  in  Samaria,4  he  might  be  taken 
as  a  reliable  authority.  But  unfortunately  he  no  more  than 
reflects  the  current  Jewish  prejudices  of  his  day,  and  allows 
us  to  perceive  some  of  the  truth  only  through  the  contradic- 
tions in  which  he  involves  himself.  In  his  account  of  the 
fall  of  Northern  Israel,  he  adds  to  the  letter  of  the  Biblical 
narrative  that  "  all  "  of  the  people  of  the  Northern  kingdom 
were  deported.5  This  must  have  been  the  prevailing  vulgar 
opinion  in  Judaism,  and  indeed  has  at  least  the  negative 
support  of  the  Biblical  account.  He  also  draws  the  infer- 
ence, so  plausible  to  the  reader  of  Ezra-Nehcmia,  that  it 
was  the  Samaritan  sectarians  who  interfered  throughout 
with  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple.0  He 
charges  that  the  Samaritans  affected  to  be  Jews  when  it 
suited  their  advantage,  and  otherwise  claimed  to  be  Sidoni- 
ans.7  But  an  intimation  of  another  side  of  the  question 
crops  out.  He  tells  us  in  one  place  that  "  Shechem  is  in- 
habited by  apostates  of  the  Jewish  nation,"  and  that  the 
Samaritans  profess  to  be  Hebrews,  although  not  Jews.8 
And  he  adds  that  this  apostate  community  was  increased  by 

miscellanea,  i,  140)  between  the  shikkorc,  drunkards,  of  the  same  pass- 
age and  Sychar,  as  an  abusive  epithet  for  Shechem,  Jn.  4,  5.  I  would 
suggest  that  in  the  epithet  "  fool  "  there  is  a  play  upon  the  place  More, 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Shechem.  The  Greek  v-upos,  "  fool ",  was 
adopted  by  the  late  Hebrew  in  the  same  sense;  see  Jastrow,  Diction- 
ary>  P-  749.  and  cf.  Mt.  5,  22,  and  commentators  ad  loc. 

4  Life,  52. 

5  AI  ix,  14,  3  ;  cf.  x,  9,  7. 

6  A  J  xi,  cc.  2,  4;   c.   5,  8. 

7  See  Additional  Note  B. 

8  AJ  xi,  8,  6. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  1 57 

Jews  who  had  eaten  unclean  things,  broken  the  Sabbath,  or 
committed  like  offences,  and  who  fled  to  Shechem.9  Jo- 
sephus  thus  admits,  however  unwillingly  and  unconsciously 
that  the  Samaritans  were  Israelites,  and  that  they  were 
nearly  enough  related  to  the  Jews  to  be  an  asylum  for  the 
discontented  or  excommunicates  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
The  worthy  historian  is  a  good  example  of  the  ambiguity 
which  affects  the  whole  Jewish  attitude  toward  the  sect. 

The  New  Testament  has  not  been  sufficiently  applied  for 
the  understanding  of  the  Jewish  treatment  of  the  Samari- 
tans, and  the  commentators  have  largely  failed  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  several  pertinent  passages  to  apprehend  the 
status  of  the  Samaritans  according  to  the  Jewish  mind  of 
the  1st  Century.  But  the  volume  throws  considerable  light 
upon  our  quest.  Jesus  himself  twice  met  with  Samaritan 
discourtesy,  twice  used  the  Samaritans  to  point  a  moral, 
twice  referred  to  the  Samaritans  in  defining  the  scope  of  his 
Gospel,  and  once  had  the  epithet  "  Samaritan  "  coarsely 
applied  to  himself.10  And  in  the  subsequent  history,  the 
action  of  his  Church  in  regard  to  the  evangelization  of  Sa- 
maria is  instructive  for  our  study. 

In  Jn.  4  occurs  the  story  of  Jesus'  conversation  with  the 
woman  of  Sychar  by  Jacob's  Well,  a  meeting  which  resulted 
in  his  sojourn  in  the  town  for  two  days,  when  many 
Samaritans  came  to  believe  in  him.11  The  scene  in  which 
the  Samaritan  woman  at  first  churlishly  refused  the  wearied 

9  Ibid.,  §  7.  He  also  knows  that  Samaritans  were  up  to  his  own  day 
admitted  into  the  temple  precincts;  xviii,  2,  2. 

10  See  above,  p.  155. 

11  The  author  accepts  this  story  as  authentic,  and  as  one  of  the  many 
instances  in  which  the  evangelist  appears  true  to  local  conditions  and 
color.  The  mere  reference  to  the  Samaritan  belief  in  a  Messiah  adds 
corroboration  to  the  anecdote.  The  city  Sychar  I  take  to  be  Shechem : 
see  above,  p.  20.  It  may  be  noted  here  that  the  Roman  martyrology 
celebrates  March  20  as  the  anniversary  of  the  Samaritan  woman 
"  Photina,"  who  is  said  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  along  with  her 
sons  Joseph  and  Victor. 


158  THE  SAMARITANS 

Jew  a  cup  of  cold  water  is  the  classic  instance  of  the  mutual 
hatred  of  the  two  sects. 

Again,  Luke  9,  5 iff  describes  a  journey  Jesus  took  up 
to  Jerusalem,  apparently  by  the  route  through  Samaria.  On 
this  occasion  "  he  sent  messengers  before  him,  and  they 
entered  into  a  village  of  Samaritans,  so  as  to  make  ready 
for  him;  and  they  would  not  receive  him,  because  he  was 
evidently  going  to  Jerusalem."  This  village  may  have  been 
Ginaia,  the  ancient  En-gannim  and  modern  Jenin,  doubt- 
less the  scene  of  frequent  conflicts  between  the  Samaritans 
and  Jewish  pilgrims,  one  bloody  instance  of  which  is  re- 
corded by  Josephus.12  In  response  to  this  inhospitality  the 
Jewish  feeling  of  the  disciples  blazes  forth  in  the  spirit  of 
Elija :  "  Sir,  wilt  thou  that  we  bid  fire  to  come  down  from 
heaven  and  destroy  them  ?  "  But  Jesus'  own  mind  is  re- 
vealed by  the  rebuke  he  administers  to  his  followers.  The 
party  then  went  into  another  village  where  they  were  more 
hospitably  received.13 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  both  of  these  passages  nar- 
rating the  transit  of  Jews  through  Samaria,  it  is  taken  as 
a  matter  of  course  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples  lodged  in 
Samaritan  villages  and  purchased  Samaritan  food.  To  be 
sure,  the  coarse  and  yet  natural  inhospitality  of  the  Samari- 
tans toward  the  Jews  broke  out  on  both  occasions.  With 
these  facts  the  comment  of  the  Fourth  Gospel :  "  For  the 
Jews  have  no  dealings  with  (crwyxpOvrai)  the  Samaritans  "  (4, 
7),  as  generally  interpreted,  disagrees,  for  in  the  next  breath 
the  evangelist  tells  how  the  disciples  had  gone  into  the  town 

12  See  above,  p.  85. 

13  The  possible  identification  with  Ginaia  presupposes,  with  most 
modern  commentators,  that  Luke  gives  the  story  out  of  historical 
connection,  inasmuch  as  the  last  journey  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  with 
which  the  evangelist  connects  the  incident,  was  by  way  of  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  route.  If  the  incident  be  rightly  connected  with  Jesus'  final 
journey, —  so  for  example  by  Godet, —  then  the  Samaritan  village  may 
have  lain  in  the  plain  of  Scythopolis,  or  even  across  Jordan ;  see  Chap. 
VIII.  This  would  easily  explain  how  the  party  found  "  another  kind 
of  village  ",  iripav  nufir\vf  in  the  close  neighborhood. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  159 

to  buy  food.  But  there  are  grave  doubts  as  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  clause,  which  is  omitted  in  the  Alexandrine  Co- 
dex, the  Codex  Bezae,  and  in  the  Italic  MSS  a,  b,  e;  it  is 
rejected  by  Teschendorf,  and  bracketed  by  Westcott-Hort 
and  Nestle.  The  probabilities  favor  the  view  that  it  is  a 
gloss  representing  the  actual  conditions  of  a  later  age.  If 
it  is  to  be  preserved,  then  either  the  author  is  guilty  of  an 
inexact  expression,  or  else  the  verb  requires  some  different 
translation  than  the  one  generally  given  to  it.14  But  the 
evangelical  narratives  show  that  the  Jews  in  that  period 
exercised  considerable  liberty  in  entering  Samaritan  mar- 
kets and  accepting  Samaritan  hospitality,  a  liberty  that  was 
the  greater  when  we  recall  that  there  were  few  foods  which 
could  not  easily  be  rendered  unlawful.  Indeed,  as  the  fol- 
lowing Chapter  will  show,  this  liberty  was  preserved  both 
in  theory  and  practice  well  down  into  the  Talmudic  age. 
Also  the  common  statement  that  the  Jews  avoided  Samaria 
as  an  unclean  land  and  therefore  preferred  the  Persean 
route,  cannot  be  maintained.15  For  in  addition  to  these 
Gospel  narratives,  there  is  the  distinct  testimony  of  Jo- 
sephus  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Galilsean  pilgrims  to  go 
through  Samaria,10  a  liberty  followed  into  late  times  by  the 
Jewish  rabbis.  Finally,  there  is  the  explicit  Rabbinic  dic- 
tum that  "  the  land  of  Samaria  is  clean."17  Jesus  how- 
ever seems  generally  to  have  gone  up  to  Jerusalem  by  way 
of  Penea,  and  the  Fourth  Evangelist  takes  occasion  to  ex- 
plain the  deviation  from  his  usual  custom  by  the  statement 

14  J.  Lighlfoot,  ad  loc.  {Works,  1684,  ii,  538),  seems  to  be  the  only- 
commentator  who  recognizes,  quite  apart  from  the  textual  argument, 
the  difficulty  of  the  clause.  The  verb  crvyxp&<r0ai  corresponds  to  the 
Talmudic  histappeq,  which  is  used  by  R.  Abbahu  in  the  IVth  Century 
in  admitting  that  in  earlier  days  the  Jews  had  dealings  with  the  Samar- 
itans ;  see  below,  p.  192. 

15  E.g.  Smith,  HG  256;  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  ed.  8,  New  York,  i,  394.  In  another  passage  Edersheim  cor- 
rects himself,  p.  400. 

16  A  J  xx,  6,  1. 

17  See  Chap.  X,  note  27. 


160  THE  SAMARITANS 

that  "  he  had  to  pass  through  Samaria,"  the  necessity  ap- 
pearing from  the  context  to  be  his  desire  to  get  quickly 
away  from  the  hostility  of  the  Judaean  authorities.18  The 
Jews  naturally  took  the  eastern  route  to  avoid  the  un- 
pleasantness of  the  journey  through  Samaria. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke,  whose  interest  in  "  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel  "  is  characteristic,  also  gives  the  story 
of  the  healing  of  ten  lepers,  one  of  whom  was  a  Samaritan, 
17,  11-19.  Jesus  responds  to  their  request  that  he  compas- 
sionate them  by  bidding  them  go  and  show  themselves  to 
the  priests.  In  thus  holding  them  to  the  Levitical  law,  he 
included  the  Samaritan  with  the  rest  as  an  Israelite,  and 
the  inferred  acceptability  of  the  Samaritan  as  a  subject  of 
the  Jewish  laws  of  purification  at  the  temple,  is  in  entire 
accord  with  the  Talmudic  spirit;  Josephus  himself  records 
the  permitted  participation  of  Samaritans  at  the  temple 
feasts.19  The  story  proceeds  to  tell  how  on  the  way  to  the 
priests  the  lepers  were  cleansed,  but  only  one  of  them  turned 
back  to  thank  his  benefactor,  and  "he  was  a  Samaritan." 
Jesus  responds :  "  Were  there  not  ten  cleansed,  but  where 
are  the  nine  ?  None  has  returned  to  give  glory  to  God  save 
this  stranger."20  The  gratitude  of  the  Samaritan  was  made 
to  point  a  moral  to  the  Jews  even  as  was  the  faith  of  a 
heathen  centurion  upon  another  occasion,  Mt.  8,  5ff. 

From  this  episode  we  pass  naturally  to  the  Parable  of 

18  I  cannot  enter  into  the  discussion  concerning  the  place  of  Jesus' 
baptizing,  In.  3,  221.  There  is  no  reason  to  adopt  Robinson's  sugges- 
tion, LBR  333,  supported  by  Stevens,  IBL  1883,  p.  128,  and  hypothet- 
lcally  adopted  by  the  map  of  the  Survey  of  Western  Palestine,  that 
Salim  and  Aenon  are  in  the  neighborhood  of  Shechem;  the  suggestion 
contradicts  all  that  we  know  of  the  fields  of  labor  of  John  Baptist  and 
Jesus. 

19  See  above,  note  9. 

20  'AXXo7e^$.  This  word  is  used  in  the  Greek  to  translate  bcn- 
nekar,  e.  g.  Gen.  17,  27;  Ex.  12,  43.  In  Ecclus.  45,  13,  it  refers  to  a 
member  of  another  tribe  within  Israel,  translating  car.  Its  sense  then 
is  weaker  than  dXX60i'Xos,  which  was  used  of  Gentiles  alone,  especially 
of  the  Philistines.  As  will  be  shown  below,  Jesus  maintained  the 
actual  distinction  between  Jew  and  Samaritan. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  161 

the  Good  Samaritan,  Luke,  10,  25ff,  which  in  its  fame  is 
equalled  only  by  the  Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son.  The 
parable  has  been  somewhat  stretched  by  exegetes  so  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  Jesus  allowed  no  difference  between 
Jew  and  Samaritan,  and  was  indeed  inclined  to  find  Samari- 
tans better  people  than  the  Jews.  This  is  a  fallacy  of  mod- 
ern interpretation  which  would  make  out  of  Jesus  nothing 
else  than  a  modern  liberal.  But  the  story  is  merely  an 
answer  to  the  lawyer's  question,  "  Who  is  my  neighbor  ?  " 
A  good  Pagan  would  have  served  as  an  example,  but  the 
Samaritan  was  nearer  home,  while  the  motive  of  religious 
disgust  at  the  bloody  and  unclean  body  of  the  man  who  fell 
among  thieves  could  only  come  into  play  if  an  Israelite 
were  the  hero.  It  has  been  generally  overlooked  that 
Jesus'  postulate  of  the  possibility  of  high  virtue  in  the 
Samaritans  is  paralleled  by  the  saying  of  Rabbi  Simon  ben 
Gamaliel,  frequently  quoted  and  allowed  by  the  Talmud: 
"  Every  law  which  the  Samaritans  have  accepted,  they  are 
more  punctilious  in  observing  than  the  Jews."21  The  Tal- 
mud also  gives  an  anecdote  of  an  act  of  courtesy  towards 
a  Jewish  rabbi  on  the  part  of  the  Samaritans.22  In  fact 
the  argument  of  Jesus  was  all  the  stronger  to  his  hearers 
because  of  their  recognition  of  the  possible  virtues  of  the 
Samaritans;  they  could  not  retort  to  him  that  he  was  in- 
venting an  imaginary  good  Samaritan. 

The  dogmatic  position  of  Jesus  toward  the  Samaritans  is 
positively  stated  in  his  conversation  with  the  Samaritan 
woman.  The  latter  enters  into  a  theological  argument  with 
the  mysterious  stranger :  "  Sir,  I  perceive  that  thou  art  a 
prophet.  Our  fathers  worshipped  on  this  mountain,  and 
thou  sayest  that  the  place  to  worship  is  in  Jerusalem.  Jesus 
says  to  her:  Woman,  believe  me  that  the  time  is  coming 
when  neither  on  this  mountain  nor  in  Jerusalem  shall  ye 

21  See  below,  p.  170. 

22  See  below,  p.  193- 

11 


1 62  THE  SAMARITANS 

worship  the  Father.  Ye  worship  what  ye  know  not,  we 
worship  what  we  know ;  for  salvation  is  of  the  Jews." 
This  theological  depreciation  of  the  Samaritans  is  exactly 
that  of  the  Jewish  Church,  although  deprived  of  all  malice. 
The  assertion  of  the  peculiar  privilege  of  the  Jews  was 
also  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church,  which  followed 
its  Master,  being  abundantly  expressed  by  the  broadest- 
minded  apostle,  Paul,  e.g.  Rom.  3,  iff.  Nor  did  Jesus 
respect  the  institutions  of  Samaritanism ;  the  cleansed  Sa- 
maritan he  bade  go  with  his  Jewish  fellows  to  the  priests 
at  Jerusalem.  Further,  throughout  his  ministry  Jesus  care- 
fully distinguished  between  Jew  and  Samaritan.  In  his 
commission  to  his  disciples  he  commanded  them  :  "  Go  not 
into  the  way  of  Gentiles,  and  enter  no  city  of  Samaritans, 
but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel," 
Mt.  10,  5f.  And  this  restriction  against  that  sect  he  him- 
self carefully  observed;  only  in  the  case  of  the  favorable 
reception  accidentally  accorded  him  at  Shechem  did  he  give 
himself  out  to  the  Samaritans;  but  this  is  as  evident  an 
exception  to  his  custom  as  was  the  healing  of  the  Phoenician 
woman's  daughter  on  the  borders  of  Tyre,  Mk.  7,  24ft;  Mt. 
15,  2ifT.22a 

To  the  present  writer's  understanding  of  Jesus'  character 
and  purpose,  the  limitation  of  his  work  to  orthodox  Judaism 
was  with  the  deliberate  practical  intention  of  devoting  him- 
self exclusively  in  his  lifetime  to  the  community  which  he 
regarded  as  the  one  true  Church.  But  it  would  be  errone- 
ous  to  gather  from  Mt.  10,  51,  that  Jesus  put  the  Samaritans 
on  the  same  plane  with  the  Gentiles;  if  so,  he  would  have 
stood  below  the  level  of  Judaism,  which  recognized  the 
Israelitish  character  of  that  sect.  His  mind  concerning  the 
Samaritans  appears  in  one  of  his  final  instructions  to  his 

22a  There  is  absolutely  no  reason  to  hold  with  Godet  that  in  Lit.  o, 
51  ff  Jesus  was  attempting  a  mission  in  northern  Samaria  so  as  to  exer- 
cise his  disciples  in  the  more  catholic  ideas  of  his  Gospel. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  163 

disciples.  In  Acts,  1,  8,  he  is  recorded  as  saying  to  them: 
"  Ye  shall  be  my  witnesses  both  in  Jerusalem  and  all  Judaea 
and  Samaria  and  to  the  end  of  the  earth."  Here  Samaria 
is  distinguished  as  apart  from  Jewry,  but  equally  apart 
from  the  rest  of  the  world.  Its  Lord's  injunction  the 
Apostolic  Church  followed  as  soon  as  the  opportunity  came. 
According  to  Acts,  8,  1,  upon  the  persecution  following 
Stephen's  death  "  all  were  scattered  into  the  lands  of  Judaea 
and  Samaria,  except  the  Apostles."  Then  in  v.  5ff  is  given 
the  history  of  the  deacon  Philip's  evangelistic  labors  in  a 
city  of  Samaria,  doubtless  Shechem;23  he  was  well  received 
by  the  people  because  of  his  miracles  and  teachings.  There- 
upon the  Apostles  in  Jerusalem  sent  down  Peter  and  John 
as  their  commissioners  to  the  Samaritan  city,  who  laid  their 
hands  upon  the  converts  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  appears  that  according  to  this  history  the  admis- 
sion of  the  Samaritans  was  regarded  as  a  step  forward, 
and  so  required  the  formal  cognizance  of  the  mother-church. 
But  in  general  this  action  of  the  Church  in  freely  and  easily 
admitting  the  Samaritans  to  fellowship  in  the  Gospel  was 
in  full  accord  with  the  better  Jewish  view,  which  never  was 
able  to  deny  that  the  Samaritans  were  Israelites.  It  is  to 
be  noticed  that  no  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  advance  is 
recorded,  as  in  the  case  of  the  admission  of  Cornelius  and 
his  family,  to  give  divine  endorsement  to  an  extraordinary 
innovation.  The  history  includes  the  story  of  Simon 
Magus  and  closes  with  a  reference  to  the  evangelization  of 

23  Gr :  els  (ttjv)  iroXiv  rfjs  Ha/xapias.  The  article  ~r^i>  appears  in  Cod. 
Sin.,  A,  B,  31,  40,  and  is  adopted  by  Teschendorf,  Westcott-Hort, 
Nestle.  On  its  face  "  the  city  of  Samaria  "  can  only  mean,  as  Wendt 
says  ad  loc,  the  chief  city  of  the  land,  which  would  be  Samaria-Se- 
baste.  But  as  the  whole  narrative  evidently  deals  with  the  Samaritan 
sect,  with  which  Sebaste  had  no  connection,  being  a  thoroughly  Gentile 
city,  doubtless  the  original  tradition  meant  Shechem,  which  was  the 
only  Polis  of  the  sect.  The  Syriac  has  therefore  "  the  city  of  the 
Samaritans."  In  general,  the  author  of  Acts  seems  ignorant  of  the 
place  referred  to,  and  may  have  indulged  in  the  confusion,  which  ap- 
pears in  later  literature,  between  Sebaste  and  Shechem. 


1 64  THE  SAMARITANS 

many  Samaritan  villages.24  Of  these  new  converts  Acts 
offers  but  little  further  information;  the  Church  in  Samaria 
is  referred  to  again  in  9,  31  and  15,  3. 

To  sum  up  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament:  the  Sa- 
maritan appears  as  an  Israelite,  but  one  whose  religion  is  in 
the  condition  of  ignorance  and  whose  institutions  are  irreg- 
ular. But  there  is  no  question  over  his  right  as  an  Israelite 
to  admission  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  This  witness, 
which  is  also  that  of  the  earlier  strata  of  the  Talmud,  is 
truer  than  the  prejudiced  opinion  of  Josephus.  As  evi- 
dence for  the  1st  Century  the  New  Testament  is  thus  a 
valuable  auxiliary  to  the  testimony  of  the  Talmud,  to  the 
consideration  of  which  we  shall  proceed  in  the  next  Chapter. 

In  Chapters  XII.  and  XIII.  the  most  important  of  the 
Patristic  references  to  the  Samaritans  will  be  reviewed. 
Those  authorities  correctly  regard  the  race  as  a  Jewish 
sect,  or  rather  as  one  of  the  initial  heresies  of  the  True 
Religion.  Here  may  be  noticed  a  passage  from  Justin 
Martyr  (lid  Century),  a  Neapolitan  by  birth,  in  which  he 
closely  associates  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  as  branches  of 
the  Chosen  People.  The  reference  is  as  follows  :25  "  All 
the  other  human  races  are  called  Gentiles  by  the  Spirit  of 
prophecy;  but  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan  races  are  called 
the  tribe  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Jacob.  And  the  proph- 
ecy in  which  it  was  predicted  that  there  should  be  more 
believers  from  the  Gentiles  than  from  the  Jews  and  the 
Samaritans,  we  will  produce." 

2*  For  Simon,  see  Chap.  XIII,  §  2. 

25  First  Apology,  c.  53.  Justin  does  not  display  any  exact  informa- 
tion concerning  the  Samaritan  sect.  His  references  to  them  belong 
almost  entirely  to  his  reports  of  the  Simonian  heresy,  into  which  he 
asserts  almost  the  whole  community  fell  —  an  erroneous  statement, 
doubtless  based  on  Acts  8,   10. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE    SAMARITANS    IN    THE    TALMUDS    AND 
OTHER    RABBINIC    LITERATURE.1 

Our  chief  sources  for  this  Chapter  are  the  Talmuds  of 
Babylon  and  Jerusalem  and  their  auxiliary  collections  of 
Toseftas  (i.e.  Additions).  Foremost  in  this  material  stands 
the  Masseket  Kutim,  or  Tractate  on  the  Samaritans,  of 
which  a  description  and  translation  with  notes  appear  in 
the  next  Chapter.  Also  the  Midrashim,  especially  the  great 
commentary  on  Genesis,  Bereshit  Rabba,  present  much  Hag- 
gadic  material.  The  mediaeval  Jewish  literature  contains 
almost  no  first-hand  information  on  the  subject. 

Indeed  so  hazy  did  this  later  Jewish  mind  become  over 
the  Samaritans  that  provisions  concerning  the  Gentiles  came 
to  include  as  a  matter  of  course  the  Samaritans.  Later,  upon 
the  arbitrary  exercise  of  the  Christian  censor's  power  over 
the  printed  editions  of  the  Talmud,  "  Kuthim  "  was  easily 

1  The  most  convenient  survey  of  this  subject  is  the  article  of  Ham- 
burger in  his  REJud.  ii,  .s.  v.  Samaritancr.  An  abundant  and  critical 
collection  of  material  is  found  in  Kirchheim  Scptem  libri  Talmudici 
parvi  Hierosolymitani,  and  Introductio  in  librum  Talmudicum  "  dc 
Samaritanis"  {Karme  Shomeron)  ;  both  Frankfurt,  1851  (in  Hebrew). 
Taglicht  has  given  a  brief  dissertation,  Die  Kuthder  als  Bcobachter 
des  Gesetzes  nach  talmudischen  Qucllcn,  Berlin,  1888.  See  also  Geiger, 
Urschrift,  passim;  Frankel,  Ueber  den  Einfluss  der  paldstinensichcn 
Excgese,  244;  Nutt,  Samaritan  Targum;  Edersheim,  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
vol.  i,  bk.  iii,  c.  vii.  Wreschner,  in  Samaritanische  Traditionen,  Berlin, 
1888,  treats  especially  of  points  of  comparison  with  the  Karaites.  The 
Works  of  John  Lightfoot,  London,  1684,  is  a  thesaurus  of  references 
on  the  present  subject.  For  the  Tosefta  I  refer  to  M.  S.  Zucker- 
mandel,  Tosefta,  1881.  The  references  to  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  are 
made  according  to  the  Krotoschin  edition,  1866.  For  references  to 
Masseket  Kutim,  cf.  Chapter  XL 

165 


1 66  THE  SAMARITANS 

used  as  a  substitute  for  "  Goyim,"  Gentiles,  or  the  sharper 
expression,  "  Worshippers  of  stars  and  constellations," 
terms  which  often  included  the  Christians.  Hence  in  any 
Talmudic  mention  of  the  Kuthim  it  is  necessary  to  scru- 
tinize both  text  and  context  to  ascertain  whether  the  word 
is  used  in  its  primary  or  secondary  sense.  Elder  MSS 
often  show  that  the  reading  "  Kuthim  "  is  not  original.2 

Our  investigation  of  the  political  relations  between  the 
Samaritans  and  the  Jews  has  revealed  to  us  the  lay  mind  of 
the  latter  concerning  the  former  as  exhibited  in  the  New 
Testament  and  Josephus.  We  now  proceed  to  ascertain  the 
status  of  the  Samaritans  before  the  law  of  the  Jewish 
Church;  our  special  field  of  investigation  is  therefore  the 
Corpus  of  that  law,  the  Talmud.  Fortunately  this  great 
wilderness  of  material  submits  itself  in  large  part  to  chro- 
nological discrimination.  It  is  now  generally  recognized 
that  its  basis,  the  Mishna,  was  completed  by  the  end  of  the 
lid  Century  A.  C,  while  the  commentary  thereon,  the 
Gemara,  was  not  finally  redacted,  at  least  in  the  case  of  the 
Babylonian  Talmud,  until  the  Vlth  Century.  Moreover  as 
the  decisions  of  the  rabbis  are  generally  referred  to  their 
authors,  whose  dates  are  in  most  cases  well  known,  we  are 
able  to  follow  the  development  of  Jewish  opinion  on  the 
Samaritans  for  the  first  four  centuries  of  the  Christian  era. 
It  may  be  here  noted  that  it  is  proper  to  take  up  this  dis- 
cussion before  approaching  the  subject  of  the  Samaritan 

2  The  following  is  a  list  of  the  Mishnaic  passages  in  which"  Kutim  " 
refers  to  the  Samaritans:  Berakot,  vii,  i;  viii,  8;  Dcmai,  iii,  4;  v,  9; 
vi,  1;  vii,  4;  Shebiit,  viii,  10;  Tcrnma,  iii,  9;  Shchalim,  i.  5:  Rosh  ha- 
Shana,  ii,  2;  Ketubot,  iii,  1;  Nedarim,  iii,  10;  Gittin,  i,  5;  Kiddushin, 
iv,  3;  Ohalot,  xvii,  3;  Tohorot,  v,  8;  Nidda,  iv,  1,  2;  vii,  3,  4,  5. 
Schurer's  list,  GJV  ii,  15,  note  43,  includes  Pea,  ii,  7,  where  nokrim, 
"  foreigners,"  is  to  be  read,  and  Challa,  v,  7,  where  Kushim,  "  Egyp- 
tians," is  to  be  read.  To  his  list  Shebiit,  viii,  10,  is  to  be  added.  See 
Rabbinovicz,  Varicc  lectiones  hi  Mischnam  et  in  Talmud  Babylonicum, 
1867,  and  the  critical  text  of  L.  Goldschmidt,  Der  babylonische  Talmud, 
1896.  Taglicht  notices  some  of  the  textual  uncertainties  concerning 
"  Kutim  ",  op.  cit.  7. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  167 

theology,  because  sure  data  in  the  Samaritan  literature  do 
not  go  back  of  the  IVth  Century. 

At  the  same  time  many  uncertainties  remain  after  the 
most  exhaustive  criticism.  Contemporary  doctors  of  the 
Law  hotly  dispute  over  the  status  of  the  Samaritans,  and 
changes  of  opinions  on  the  part  of  rabbis  are  recorded.  In 
many  cases  there  are  contradictory  reports  of  the  same  Hala- 
kot,  or  decisions.  Further,  at  least  for  any  student  who  is 
not  a  thorough-going  Talmudist,  it  is  often  difficult  to  in- 
terpret the  opinions  and  decisions  reported,  from  lack  of  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  and  legal  questions  in 
which  they  are  involved.  But  one  fact  stands  out  clear  and 
sure:  we  have  to  do  in  the  Talmudic  treatment  of  the  Sa- 
maritans with  a  historic  process.  Far  down  into  the  period 
of  the  Amoraim  (i.e.  the  formulators  of  the  Gemara),  Juda- 
ism was  still  making  up  its  mind  concerning  the  adverse 
sect.  We  can,  most  fortunately,  follow  the  growth  of  opin- 
ion from  the  discussions  of  Akiba  and  Meir,  Simon  b.  Gam- 
aliel and  Eliezer,  in  the  first  half  of  the  lid  Century,  when 
the  Samaritans  were  a  lively  subject  of  debate,  clown  to 
the  days  of  Rabbis  Ame  and  Assi,  about  300  A.  C,  when 
those  scholars  finally  decreed  the  excommunication  of  the 
sectarians,  after  which  time  we  find  only  sporadic  opinions 
in  variance  with  the  position  of  the  great  majority.  Ac- 
cordingly it  is  advisable  to  pursue  the  subject  as  closely  as 
possible  upon  chronological  lines,  and  it  is  first  in  place  to 
ascertain  those  points  wherein  the  Jewish  doctors  were  of 
one  mind  concerning  the  Samaritans,  at  least  for  the  period 
of  the  Tannaim,  whose  decisions  finally  fixed  the  Mishna 
at  the  end  of  the  lid  Century. 

We  have  already  observed  the  unneighborly  and  fre- 
quently hostile  attitude  obtaining  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Samaritans  throughout  the  age  of  their  common  existence 
upon  Palestinian  soil.  It  may  then  cause  surprise  that  to 
the  testimony  for  this  popular  attitude  of  the  Jews  toward 


1 68  THE  SAMARITANS 

the  Samaritans  —  repaid  by  the  latter  in  kind  —  the  letter 
of  the  Talmud  is  often  flatly  contradictory.  This  phenom- 
enon is  not  due  to  a  spirit  of  charity,  for  ecclesiastical  law 
is  never  charitable.  But  the  reason  for  the  fact  is  simple; 
law  is  conservative,  based  on  the  precedents  of  past  history. 
It  is  the  easy  business  of  Christian  preacher  or  Jewish  Hag- 
gadist  to  stir  up  the  prejudices  of  the  people  against  the 
adversaries  of  the  church;  but  the  law  assumes  a  different 
position  even  towards  the  object  of  its  hostile  animadver- 
sion. The  schismatic  or  heretic,  though  outlawed,  may  still 
possess  some  rights  according  to  the  constitutional  law  of 
the  mother-church.  Hence  it  is  that  the  Talmudic  opinions 
and  decisions,  far  more  than  popular  tradition  and  vulgar 
brawls,  bear  witness  to  the  actual  historical  relations  origin- 
ally existing  between  Jews  and  Samaritans.  When  we  find 
the  doctors  of  the  lid  Century  wrestling  over  this  problem, 
we  have  good  evidence,  otherwise  almost  wholly  absent,  that 
in  the  preceding  centuries  the  Samaritan  had  a  quasi-stand- 
ing  within  the  Jewish  Church,  which  only  the  widening  of 
the  breach  and  the  slow  development  of  law  could  at  last 
annul.  Accordingly  Talmudic  authority  throws  desiderated 
light  upon  the  most  obscure  ages  of  Samaritan  history. 

To  approach  now  the  Talmudic  appreciation  of  Samari- 
tanism,  we  find  that  no  fault  was  found  in  the  earlier  ages 
with  respect  to  the  cardinal  tenet  of  the  soleness  and  spirit- 
uality of  the  God  of  Israel.  The  one  early  exception,  for 
the  end  of  the  lid  Century,  is  the  anecdote  concerning  R. 
Ishmael  b.  Joseph,  who,  falling  into  dispute  with  a  Samari- 
tan at  Shechem  on  his  way  towards  Jerusalem,  accused  the 
Samaritans  of  worshipping  the  idols  hidden  under  Gerizim 
by  Jacob  on  his  return  from  Haran  {Gen.  35,  4).3  But, 
as  Taglicht  remarks,  this  was  only  "  eine  neckische  Ant- 

3  Aboda  Zara  Jer.  44c!;  also  Bereshit  Rabba,  c.  81;  Dcbarhn  Rabba, 
c.  3.    The  rabbi  escaped  death  only  by  flight. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  169 

wort."4  The  first  instance  known  to  me  of  the  Jewish  as- 
persion of  the  Samaritans  for  the  dove-cult  belongs  to  the 
middle  of  the  IVth  Century.5  But  against  these  calum- 
nies we  possess  the  positive,  if  genuine,  utterance  of  a 
Tosefta  :6  "  One  may  rent  his  house  to  a  Samaritan,  and 
have  no  fear  that  the  latter  will  bring  idols  into  it." 

Again,  the  Samaritans  are  never  denied  entire  devotion 
to  the  Law  of  Moses.  The  many  slight  textual  differences 
in  their  edition  were  generally  unnoticed,  and  even  the 
falsifications  introduced  in  the  Pentateuch  do  not  appear  to 
have  been  a  prime  source  of  strife.  I  know  of  but  one  case 
of  reference  to  such  a  falsification,  and  this  is  of  an  unim- 
portant nature,  while  it  is  doubtless  a  materially  correct 
gloss.7  The  Samaritan  rejection  of  the  rest  of  the  Jewish 
canon  nowhere  appears  charged  against  the  sect  as  a  heresy. 
To  be  sure,  Judaism  assigned  an  infinite  superiority  to  the 
Law  over  against  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  latter 
being  for  long  recognized  as  Kabbala  or  tradition. 

Moreover  the  Samaritans  possessed  not  only  the  letter 
of  the  Law  but  also  the  Jewish  spirit  of  its  practical  appli- 
cation. The  Pentateuch  was  to  them  as  to  the  Jews  the 
book  of  life,  the  all-sufficient  code  of  right  living.  Their 
faithfulness  in  this  respect  called  forth  the  generous  ap- 
plause of  one  of  the  lid  Century  patriarchs,  R.  Simon  b. 

4  Op.  cit.  22. 

5  R.  Nachman  b.  Isaac,  in  Cholin,  6a.  See  Additional  Note  D.  Ob- 
serve the  Samaritan  reproach  against  the  Jews  for  their  imagery  in 
the  temple ;  Chapter  VI,  note  32. 

6Tos.  Ab.  Z.  2,  9;  but  Zuckermandel  places  this  clause  in  his  mar- 
ginal  apparatus. 

7  This  is  the  case  of  the  introduction  of  "  Shechem "  after  "  the 
oaks  of  More"  in  Dt.  11,  30.  In  Sifre  to  the  passage,  this  addition  is 
reprobated,  according  to  a  Jewish  view  that  another  Ebal  and  Gerizim 
were  meant,  a  view  adopted  by  Jerome  in  his  Onomasticon,  s.  w. 
Gcbal,  Golgol  (Migne,  xxiii,  946).  Yet  in  Sota,  33b,  it  is  allowed  that 
the  addition  makes  no  difference.  See  Frankel,  op.  cit.  243 ;  Geiger, 
op.  cit.  81.  In  one  case  the  grammar  of  the  Samaritan  exegesis  is  con- 
demned, namely  in  their  ignoring  of  the  he  locale,  as  in  their  interpre- 
tation of  rmnn,  in  Dt.  25,  5,  which  they  translated  as  "the  one  with- 
out"; Yebam.  Jer.  3a;  Kiddushin,  76a. 


170  THE  SAMARITANS 

Gamaliel  (d.  circa  165),  the  father  of  Juda  ha-Nasi,  who 
was  the  editor  of  the  Mishna.  His  dictum  is :  "  Every 
command  the  Samaritans  keep,  they  are  more  scrupulous  in 
observing  than  Israel."8  A  parallel  to  this  catholic-minded 
assertion  is  another  to  the  effect  that  "  a  Samaritan  is  like  a 
full  Jew."9  Another  prescription  found  in  the  Mishna,  of 
more  restrictive  character  and  negative  in  expression,  reads : 
"  This  is  the  rule :  Whatever  they  are  suspected  in,  they 
are  not  to  be  believed  in."10 

In  regard  to  the  two  great  institutes  of  Israel  which  are 
its  most  evident  marks  of  differentiation  from  the  rest  of  the 
world,  namely  circumcision  and  the  Sabbath,  there  is  no 
question  in  the  Jewish  law  concerning  the  scrupulousness  of 
the  Samaritans.11  Indeed  in  these  two  respects  the  latter 
held  more  strictly  to  the  letter  of  the  Law,  rigorously  ob- 
serving circumcision  on  the  eighth  day,  and  avoiding  such 
sabbatic  legal  fictions  as  the  Erub.12  The  latter  omission 
was  a  heresy  in  the  eyes  of  the  Pharisees,  but  it  may  have 
been  just  this  literalism  of  practice  which  provoked  the 
laudatory  opinion  expressed  by  Simon  b.  Gamaliel.  As  for 
circumcision,  there  is  a  Boraita  (i.e.  an  extraneous  Mishna 
not  found  amongst  the  received  Mishnas)  of  R.  Juda,  a 
contemporary  of  R.  Meir,  in  the  middle  of  the  lid  Century, 
which  forbids  the  circumcision  of  a  Jew  by  a  Samaritan  on 
the  ground  that  the  latter  circumcised  "  in  the  name  of 
Mount  Gerizim,"  which  seems  to  mean  simply,  "  with  the 

8  This  saying  is  frequently  quoted,  e.  g.  Kidd.  76a ;  Berakot,  47b ; 
Gittin,  10a.  This  Patriarch  was  very  conservative  in  his  opinions ;  see 
Gratz,  Geschichtc  dcr  Juden,  iv,  187. 

9  Ketubot  Jer.  27a  ;  Demai  Jer.  9. 

10  Nidda,  vii,  4;  Mass.  Kut.  16.  In  the  Gemara,  57a,  the  principle  is 
applied  to  sabbatic  limits  and  libation  wine. 

11  Mass.  Kut.  10.  A  Mishna,  Nedarim,  iii,  10,  reads :  "  He  who  vows 
not  to  derive  any  benefit  from  those  who  keep  the  Sabbath,  has  no 
benefit  from  Israelites  or  Samaritans." 

12  /.  e.  the  constitution  of  extended  artificial  precincts,  whereby  sev- 
eral houses  could  be  considered  as  one,  and  their  inmates  as  of  the 
same  household. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  171 

intention  of  attaching  the  person  to  the  community  of  Geri- 
zim."13  But  R.  Meir  opposed  R.  Juda,  on  the  ground  that 
the  Samaritan  was  a  genuine  convert,  and  it  is  this  favorable 
opinion  of  Meir's  which  is  preserved  in  Massekel  Kutim.1* 
Juda  in  fact  preferred  a  Gentile  as  the  officiant.  The  rise 
of  this  narrower  opinion  was  evidently  due  to  practical  rea- 
sons. The  Samaritan  might  easily  boast  that  the  child  he 
circumcised  was  thereby  initiated  into  his  own  community. 
It  was  an  incongruity  that  a  member  of  the  rival  sect  could 
perform  the  rite  of  admission  into  the  community,  whereas 
the  Gentile  would  not  pretend  to  more  than  the  physical 
function.  We  may  compare  the  theoretically  inconsistent 
yet  practically  logical  requirement  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  of  the  re-baptism  of  Protestants. 

As  for  the  feasts  and  fasts  and  other  occasions  of  worship, 
the  Talmud  has  in  general  no  condemnation  of  the  Samari- 
tans; that  in  an  earlier  age  they  were  once  admitted  to  the 
precincts  of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  without  much  question 
is  evident  from  Josephus.15  The  Passover,  with  its  scrupu- 
lous concern  over  the  removal  of  leaven  well  before  the 
opening  of  the  sacred  week,  offered  a  severe  criterion  of  the 
straitness  of  all  who  claimed  to  be  of  Israel.  Yet  the  pre- 
vailing dictum  concerning  Samaritan  usage  in  this  respect 
is  expressed  in  the  following  Boraita :  "  The  unleaven  of 
the  Samaritans  is  allowed,  and  one  discharges  his  duty  with 
it  at  the  Passover."16  On  the  other  hand  —  and  this  illus- 
trates the  difference  of  opinion  —  that  maxim  was  contra- 
dicted by  R.  Eliezer,  Akiba's  opponent  upon  the  Samaritan 
problem,  in  a  dictum  which  accompanies  the  one  just  cited: 
the  Samaritans  "  are  not  scrupulous  over  the  fine  points  of 
the  Law."     Also  in  the  prayer  of  Benediction  after  a  com- 

13  Cf.  the  use  of  "  the  Name  "  in  the  Christian  baptismal  formula. 

14  Ab.  Z.  26b-27a;  Menachot,  42a;  Mass.  Kut.  12.     For  Meir's  posi- 
tion see  further  below. 

15  See  Chap.  IX,  note  9. 

16  Kidd.  76a;  Choi.  4a;  Gitt.  10a;  Mass.  Kut.  24;  etc. 


172  THE  SAMARITANS 

mon  meal,  which  required  the  presence  of  at  least  three  of 
the  faithful,  the  slave  and  the  Samaritan  could  be  included, 
the  Samaritan  being  thus  distinguished  from  the  Am-ha- 
areg,  or  unlearned  man.17  Also  the  pronouncing  of  the 
Benediction  by  a  Samaritan  was  so  far  acknowledged  that 
a  Jew  could  say  Amen  to  it,  however  with  the  condition  that 
the  former  should  be  heard  throughout  —  evidently  from 
fear  lest  out  of  malice  or  ignorance  he  might  invalidate  the 
worship.18 

As  to  the  ethics  of  the  Samaritans,  the  very  few  Talmudic 
references  are  most  honorable  to  their  memory.  They  were 
acquitted  of  practising  incest,19  which  included  all  unions 
within  the  prohibited  degrees,  and  also  of  the  bestiality 
ascribed  to  the  Gentiles.20  But  leaving  the  ethical  field, 
which  rarely  divides  religious  sects,  we  pass  to  the  sphere 
of  technical  cleanliness  in  food  and  hygiene  and  habitat.  In 
the  first  of  these  articles,  we  observe  that  the  Samaritan 
slaughter  of  meat  was  regarded  as  kosher,  i.e.  ritually  cor- 
rect, except  that,  lest  the  Jew  be  deceived  by  a  malicious 
Samaritan,  the  seller  is  required  to  put  into  his  mouth  an 
olive-quantum  of  the  meat,  or  the  string  of  birds  which  he 
has  to  sell.21  Indeed  in  some  respects  the  Samaritans  were 
stricter  than  the  Jews,  for  the  latter  permitted  the  eating 
of  koskos,  i.e.  flesh  of  an  animal  mortally  ill  when  slain,  or  a 
foetus,  both  of  which  were  forsworn  by  the  Samaritans; 
accordingly,  the  Jews  forbade  the  sale  of  such  articles  to 
the  other  sect.22  Their  wine  appears  to  have  been  accepted 
without  scruple,  except  in  the  case  of  its  origin  from  cer- 

17  Berak.  vii,  i.  But  there  was  further  discussion  on  the  eligibility 
of  the  Samaritan  in  the  Gemara,  47b ;  see  below,  p.  179. 

18  Berak.  viii,  8.  In  the  reference  in  the  same  Mishna  to  the  spices 
of  the  Kuthim,  Goldschmidt  reads  goyim,  "  Gentiles." 

19  Gitt.  Jcr.  43c. 

20 Ab.  Z.  15b;  Mass.  Kut.  4;  13. 

21  Choi.  3b  scq.;  Mass.  Kut.  17. 

22  Mass.  Kut.  15.  See  there  the  reason  why  the  Jews  did  not  pur- 
chase such  things  from  the   Samaritans. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  173 

tain  localities,  clown  to  R.  Meir's  time.  This  freedom  was 
finally  changed  by  Meir's  decree  against  all  Samaritan  wine 
except  that  which  was  sealed  and  so  escaped  defilement.23 

In  the  matter  of  hygiene  and  cleanliness  of  habitation 
and  soil,  the  Samaritan  usage  was  in  general  acceptable  to 
the  Jews.  Thus  the  Samaritans  were  careful  with  regard 
to  the  laws  of  menstruation,  according  to  a  majority  opin- 
ion recorded  in  a  Mishna.24  They  were  to  be  trusted  con- 
cerning the  burial  of  abortions,25  and  concerning  the  mark- 
ing of  graves,  although  the  corollary  of  the  Bet-peras  was 
not  observed  by  them.26  Hence  we  find  the  explicit  state- 
ment that  "  the  land  of  the  Kuthim  is  clean,  the  gatherings 
of  their  waters  are  clean,  their  dwellings  are  clean,  their 
roads  are  clean."27  As  was  observed  in  the  preceding 
Chapter,  this  point  has  been  generally  overlooked  in  the 
question  concerning  Samaria  as  a  land  of  thoroughfare  for 
Jewish  travellers,  and  illustrates  more  than  one  passage  in 
the  New  Testament. 

The  Samaritans  were  considered  rightly  to  observe  the 
Mosaic  provisions  concerning  the  consecration  of  the  first- 
born of  beasts,  and  the  state  of  "  uncircumcision  "  of  a  tree 
in  its  first  three  years.28  Also  they  practised  Chalisa  and 
divorce  in  correct  form.29      Likewise  they  had  the  proper 

23  Ab.   Z.    31b;    Mass.    Kut.    25.     For   the    proscribed    localities,    see 

3  °*N&da   vii    3;  R.  Meir  expressed  a  contrary  opinion.     But  accord- 
ing to  Baba  Kamma,  38b,  this  was  the  opinion  of  R.  Juda,  Meir  s  op- 

P°215eFor    primitive    Palestinian    use    in    this    matter    see    the    note    in 

PEFQS  1906,  p.  64.  „  .       . 

**Nidda,  vii,  5;  Mass.  Kut.  16  (see  note  there). 

27  Ab  Z  Jer  44d  •  cf.  Tos.  Mikwaot,  6,  I.  Taghcht  notes  to  the 
latter  reference,  op.  at.  7,  that  the  passage  in  Chagiga  25a,  where  wine 
brought  from  Galilee  is  declared  unclean  because  it  has  touched  the 
district  of  the  Kuthim,  should  read  for  this  word,  according  to  the 
MSS  "Persians",  i.  e.  with  reference  to  the  Gentiles  of  Galilee.  *or 
the  idea  of  the  purity  of  the  Holy  Land  see  Bertholet,  Die  Stellung  der 
Israeliten  zu  den  Fremden,  304. 

28  Nidda,  vii,  5.  .  ...       .        ,,        ,  _ »    n, 

**Mass   Kut.  14.     Chalisa  is  the  custom  of  "loosing  the  shoe   ,  Ut. 

25.  sff. 


174  THE  SAMARITANS 

observance  of  the  gleaning  laws,  the  tithe  for  the  poor  in 
its  year,  while  their  poor  were  to  be  trusted  in  their  state- 
ments on  these  matters.30 

The  earlier  rules  concerning  intercourse  with  the  Samari- 
tans were  most  liberal.  In  utter  contrast  to  dealings  with 
the  Gentiles,  the  Jew  might  "  go  in  private  with  them,"  i.e. 
he  need  not  be  afraid  of  having  his  throat  cut,  and  might 
also  commit  a  child  to  them  to  learn  letters  for  a  trade.31 
Also  according  to  a  Tosefta,  contradicted  however  by  Mas- 
seket  Kutim,  "  an  Israelitess  might  deliver  a  Samaritaness 
and  suckle  her  son,"  and  vice  versa.32  We  thus  learn  that  in 
those  places  where  both  sects  were  found,  there  existed  very 
intimate  intercourse  between  them  in  many  most  important 
matters  of  life.  With  reference  to  affairs  of  ordinary 
commerce,  the  relevant  dictum,  Masseket  Kutim,  7,  says 
that  "  we  lend  and  borrow  with  them  on  usury,"  but  there  is 
some  argument  for  turning  this  into  a  negative,  in  which 
case  the  Samaritans  would  be  in  the  category  of  brothers.33 
Also  the  prohibition  of  Aboda  Zara,  i,  5,  against  selling 
weapons  to  the  Gentiles  is  applied  in  the  Gemara,  15b,  to  the 
Samaritans,  but  on  the  ground  lest  these  may  sell  them 
again  to  the  Gentiles.  It  seems  strange  that,  with  all  the 
hostility  between  the  two  sects,  the  Samaritans  were  not 
reckoned  as  enemies  of  Israel  by  formal  legislation,  this 
passage  showing  that  they  came  to  be  legally  included 
among  the  classes  hostile  to  society  only  by  a  process  of 
indirection. 

With  regard  to  the  status  of  the  Samaritan  before  the 
law  of  torts,  we  possess  this  Halaka  of  Masseket  Kutim,  18 : 
"  The  Samaritan  is  on  the  same  footing  with  the  Israelite 
in  respect  to  all  damages  laid  down  in  the  Law."  It  would 
seem  that  this  is  an   undoubtedly   ancient  Tosefta.     The 

30  To s.  Pea,  4,  1 ;  Mass.  Kat.  8. 

31  Ab.  Z.  15b;  Mass.  Kid.  13  (which  see  ad  loc). 

32  To s.  Ab.  Z.  3,  1 ;  Mass.  Kut.  II. 

33  See  ad  loc. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  1 75 

same  Halaka  proceeds,  quoting  from  the  Mishna,34  and  pre- 
scribes the  same  penalties  against  members  of  either  sect 
for  manslaughter  committed  upon  one  another.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  in  the  Mishnaic  passage  the  Ger-toshab,  or 
alien  resident,35  is  not  included  in  this  prescription  of  equal- 
ity. The  Talmud  however  states  one  exception  to  this 
equality  before  the  criminal  law.  If  an  Israelite's  ox  gore 
a  Samaritan's  ox,  it  goes  clear,  while  an  offending  Samari- 
tan ox,  if  that  is  its  first  offence,  renders  the  owner  liable 
for  half  the  damage,  but  if  the  second  offence,  obligates  him 
for  the  full  value.  This  was  the  opinion  of  the  majority, 
but  R.  Meir  held  that  the  Samaritan  ox  was  in  either  case 
chargeable  for  the  damage  at  the  highest  appraisement.36 
Comparing  the  opinion  of  the  majority  with  the  Mishna  to 
this  Gemara,37  we  find  that  the  guiltlessness  of  the  Jewish 
beast  was  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the  damage  done  to  a 
Gentile's  ox,  while  the  offending  Samaritan  beast  incurred 
the  liability  of  only  half  the  damage  instead  of  the  full  cost, 
for  which  the  Gentile  ox  would  be  liable.  In  this  respect 
therefore  the  Jewish  law  of  torts  gave  the  Samaritan  a  mid- 
way position  between  Jew  and  Gentile.  There  is  no  evident 
reason  for  this  exception ;  perhaps  the  law  for  beasts  under- 
went change  easier  than  that  for  persons.  R.  Meir's  harsher 
opinion  is  not  intelligible,  except  on  the  ground  of  his 
change  of  opinion  toward  the  Samaritans,  which  is  other- 
wise testified  to.  The  Gemara  proceeds  to  discuss  why  that 
rabbi,  who  regarded  the  Samaritans  as  genuine  converts, 
placed  them  under  this  disability. 

We  turn  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  major  differences 
between  the  two  sects.  These  differentia  are  briefly  summed 
up  in  the  last  Halaka  of  Masseket  Kutim:  "  When  shall  we 
take  them  back?  When  they  renounce  Mount  Gerizim  and 

34>Makkot,  ii,  4.     See  note  to  Mass.  Kut.  18. 

33  For  this  definition,  see  Schiirer  GJV  iii,  126;  Bertholet,  op.  cit.  325. 

30  B aba  Kamiiia,  38b;  Mass.  Kut.   19. 

"'  B.  Kam.  iii,  2. 


176  THE  SAMARITANS 

confess  Jerusalem  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  —  as  a 
modern  would  put  it,  one  difference  in  cult,  and  one  in 
theology.  The  latter  difference  testifies  to  the  position  of 
the  Samaritans  in  eschatology,  wherein  they  but  preserved 
the  original  Jewish  doctrine.  But  the  contradiction  with 
respect  to  the  proper  place  of  the  cult  is  the  origo  mali,  the 
chief  article  of  the  Samaritan  heresy.  These  people  had 
formed  a  separate  community  which  worshipped  elsewhere 
than  in  Jerusalem.  In  a  word,  if  we  may  use  the  terms  of 
Christian  theology,  the  fault  of  the  Samaritan  sect  was  not 
that  of  heresy  but  rather  of  schism.  And  all  who  know 
ecclesiastical  history  recognize  that  the  latter  is  practically 
regarded  by  ecclesiastics  as  almost  worse  than  the  former, 
for  it  strikes  at  the  idea  of  the  church.  In  a  word,  the  most 
important  prescriptions  laid  down  by  the  Jewish  Church 
against  the  Samaritans  proceed  from  the  judgment  of  them 
as  schismatics  rather  than  as  heretics. 

That  not  heresy  but  schism  was  the  fault  of  the  Samar- 
itans in  the  mind  of  the  Jewish  Church  comes  out  in  the 
great  discussions  held  in  the  lid  Century  concerning  their 
status  as  converts  to  the  religion  of  Israel.  It  was  hotly 
debated  whether  they  were  "  genuine  converts "  (gere 
emet),  or  "lion-converts"  {gere  ariyot).  The  latter  ex- 
pression arose  from  the  story  in  2  Ki.  17,  251?,  according  to 
which  the  Samaritans  might  be  placed  in  the  category  of 
those  who  through  fear,  force,  or  unworthy  inducements, 
were  persuaded  to  enter  Israel.38  An  extended  discussion 
upon  the  true  character  of  the  Kuthite  converts  —  they  are 
never  otherwise  regarded  than  as  aliens  in  blood  —  is  found 
in  Kiddnshin,  75a — 76a.  Here  R.  Ishmael,  who  in  general 
appears  as  an  antagonist  of  Akiba  (belonging  to  the  "  gen- 
eration "  preceding  him),   held  that  the  Samaritans  were 

38  See  Weber,  Judische  Theologie,  74;  Bertholet,  op.  cit.  341.  Other 
references  to  lion-converts,  apart  from  the  one  given  in  the  text,  are 
B.  Kam.  38b;  Sanhedrin,  85b;  Choi.  3b;  Nidda,  56b. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  177 

lion-converts,  Akiba  that  they  were  genuine  converts;  R. 
Eliezer  agreed  with  Ishmael.  Also,  according  to  Baba 
Kamma,  38b,  R.  Meir,  although  as  we  shall  see,  his  mind 
underwent  a  change  in  another  respect  and  he  was  equal  to 
drawing  nice  distinctions  against  the  Samaritans,  neverthe- 
less held  with  Akiba.  The  dispute  was  not  allayed  till  at 
least  the  IVth  Century.  The  composition  between  the  two 
views  was  probably  obtained  by  charging  the  change  to  the 
Samaritans  themselves;  in  the  words  of  R.  Simon  b. 
Eleazar,  circa  200,  "  the  Samaritans  have  long  since  be- 
come corrupted."39 

Doubtless  the  discussion  as  between  "  lion-converts  "  and 
"  genuine  converts  "  was  an  ancient  one.  At  the  same  time 
we  are  not  to  think  that  the  latter  opinion  was  suddenly  in- 
vented by  Akiba ;  in  all  probability  it  had  good  standing  long 
before  his  day.  For  while  the  reproach  of  being  converts 
from  fear  must  be  as  ancient  as  the  Biblical  tradition  in  2  Ki. 
17,  we  have  to  remember  that  enforced  conversion  was  by  no 
means  despised  in  early  Judaism.  The  Hasmonsean  princes 
practiced  the  proselytism  of  neighboring  races  by  force  of 
arms,  and  slaves  seem  to  have  been  bought  with  the  purpose 
of  circumcising  them.40  That  the  Samaritans  were  recog- 
nized as  converts  in  some  sense  of  the  word  was  an  honored 
tradition  which  the  Jewish  law  only  slowly  surrendered.  It 
was  not  therefore  as  heretics,  or  false  Israelites,  except  in 
minor  points,  that  the  Samaritans  were  condemned,  but 
rather  as  schismatics,  who  held  themselves  aloof  from  the 
institute  of  God's  Kingdom. 

Accordingly  we  have  to  regard  the  Samaritans  as  a  separ- 
atist sect  of  Judaism,  holding  an  ambiguous  position  in  the 
eyes  of  the  latter  church,  and  one  which  had  to  be  nicely 
balanced  by  the  lawyers.     The  existence  of  such  sectarian- 

39  Ab.  Z.  Jer.  44*!.  I  confess  here  that  as  between  the  Eleazar  and 
the  Eliezer  who  were  Akiba's  contemporaries  the  Talmudic  text  ap- 
pears to  me  indefinite. 

40  Josephus,  AJ  xiii,  9,  1 ;  Bertholet,  op.  cit.  238,  254. 

12 


178  THE  SAMARITANS 

ism  partly  within  and  partly  without  the  borders  of 
Judaism,  while  subsequently  rendered  almost  impossible  by 
Talmudic  law,  has  nevertheless  more  than  one  parallel  in  the 
earlier  and  far  more  catholic  Judaism.  We  may  think  of 
the  Essenes ;  of  Jewish  Hellenism,  with  its  variant  Canon, — 
not  to  speak  of  the  extreme  development  in  the  temple  at 
Leontopolis ;  of  the  Sadducees,  who  were  gradually  pressed 
to  the  wall  by  the  Pharisees  for  observances  resem- 
bling those  of  the  Samaritans ;  and  then  there  was  the  Am- 
ha-arec  the  Boor,  who  was  the  Pariah  of  Judaism,  standing 
in  the  lowest  rank  of  all.  But  when  Essenes  and  Pharisees 
had  disappeared,  and  the  Hellenizers  had  gone  over  into 
Christianity  or  else  been  driven  back  into  Pharisaic  rigor, 
precedent  for  the  peculiar  status  of  the  Samaritans  failed, 
and  the  law  was  finally  forced  to  excommunicate  them  in 
full. 

In  practice,  far  down  in  the  Talmudic  age,  the  sect  was 
regarded  as  a  sort  of  Mittelding  between  Gentiles  and  Jews ; 
the  world  was  divided  into  "  Jews,  Samaritans  and  Gen- 
tiles."41 The  distinction  would  be  somewhat  like  that  which 
is  made  in  modern  Christendom.  A  Christian  map  of  the 
religions  of  the  world  distinguishes  by  its  colors  between  the 
Catholic  and  the  Protestant  faiths  as  well  as  between  these 
and  the  other  religions.  And  yet  the  Christian  mind  would 
always  place  the  great  divisions  of  Christendom  in  one  cate- 
gory as  over  against  all  the  other  religious  systems. 

A  word  may  here  be  said  as  to  the  comparative  worth  of 
the  Samaritan  and  the  Am-ha-arec,  before  the  Talmudic 
law.  In  general,  and  as  we  saw  above  in  the  case  of  the 
saying  of  the  Amen  after  the  Benediction,  the  Samaritan 
stands   above   the   Am-ha-arec;.42     The   distinction   is   dis- 

41  Cf.  Acts,  i,  8;  Demai,  vi,  1;   Tohorot,  v,  8. 

42  In  Demai,  iii,  4,  the  presumption  concerning  the  millers  of  the 
Samaritans  and  of  the  Am-ha-areg  is  the  same,  and  opposite  to  the 
presumption  against  the   Gentile  miller. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  179 

cussed  in  the  Gemara  of  Berakot.4Z  Here  R.  Abaye  (c. 
300)  holds  that  the  Samaritan  so  privileged  must  be  a  Cha- 
ber,  i.e.  a  "  Fellow  "  in  the  Law,  and  so  opposed  to  the 
Boor ;  this  position  seems  to  recognize  that  there  were  some 
of  the  sect  who  were  learned  in  the  Law.44  But  R.  Raba 
held  that  the  privilege  obtained  even  if  the  Samaritan  were 
an  Am-ha-arec,  a  position  which  would  in  general  rate  all 
Samaritans  above  the  Jewish  Am-ha-areq. 

To  take  up  now  the  discussion  of  the  principal  points  in 
which  Judaism  condemned  the  Samaritans,  there  is  none 
more  important  and  significant  than  its  attitude  towards 
their  women.  In  general  the  latter  are  looked  upon  as  foul 
in  all  sexual  matters.  A  Mishna  teaches  :45  "  The  Samar- 
itan women  are  menstruous  from  the  cradle.  And  the 
Samaritans  defile  a  bed  both  below  and  above,  because  they 
have  connection  with  menstruous  women,  and  the  latter  sit 
upon  every  kind  of  blood."  And  another  Mishna  recites : 
"  The  dwelling  of  the  unclean  women  of  the  Samaritans  de- 
file after  the  manner  of  an  Ohel,  because  they  bury  there 
their  abortions."46  (At  the  same  time,  as  noted  above,  the 
Samaritans  were  regarded  as  scrupulous  in  certain  cognate 
matters.47)  Consequently  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that 
marriages  with  Samaritan  women  were  forbidden,  a  prohibi- 
tion which  Masseket  Kutim  extends  against  the  men.4S 

This  treatment  of  Samaritan  women  is  strange  in  more 
than  one  respect.  Whatever  direct  knowledge  we  possess  of 
the  Samaritans  shows  that  they  were  peculiarly  scrupulous 
about  the  laws  of  defilement.     Again  it  seems  like  a  most 

43  47b. 

44  The  Samaritan  Liturgy  shows  the  use  of  the  word  Chaber  in  this 
sense ;  e.  g.  BS  ii,  72,  bottom. 

45  Nidda,  iv,  I. 

46  Nidda,  vii,  4.  An  Ohel  is  a  precinct  which  is  unclean  and  so 
renders  anyone  entering  it  unclean.  The  same  Mishna  also  contains 
an  opinion  of  R.  Juda  (c.  150)  to  the  effect  that  "  they  do  not  bury," 
etc. 

47  P.  173-     Cf.  Mass.  Kut.  11. 

4S  Kidd,  75a;  Mass.  Kut.  6;  27  (where  see  the  reasons  advanced). 


180  THE  SAMARITANS 

anomalous  ban  of  outlawry  against  these  "  converts  "  that 
intermarriage  with  them  was  prohibited,  and  their  social 
habits  condemned.  But  we  have  to  remember  that  from  the 
beginnings  of  Judaism  there  existed  two  opposing  views 
concerning  marriage  with  proselytes.49  On  the  one  hand 
there  were  the  classic  examples  of  intermarriage  with  for- 
eigners, as  in  the  case  of  Moses  and  David's  own  ancestor 
Boaz.50  Along  with  this  position  went  the  Jewish  propa- 
ganda, which,  taking  its  cue  from  D enter o-Isaia,  bade  fair 
to  break  down  the  ties  of  blood.51  On  the  other  hand  was 
the  rigorous  position,  which  appears  after  the  Return  in  the 
scrupulousness  concerning  the  family  registers.  There  was 
precedent  therefore  for  the  Samaritans  to  be  treated  as  con- 
verts in  one  of  two  opposite  ways. 

Moreover  we  must  recognize  another  fact,  largely  over- 
looked in  the  consideration  of  ancient  Judaism;  that  is,  the 
existence  of  recognized  castes,  between  which  marriage  was 
prohibited.  We  have  observed  how  the  Am-ha-arec,  was 
the  Pariah ;  but  there  were  also  several  other  grades,  which 
are  thus  listed  in  a  Talmudic  passage  :52  "  The  priest  is  be- 
fore the  Levite,  the  Levite  before  the  layman,  the  layman  be- 
fore the  Mamzer  [i.  e.  a  bastard,  or  one  of  uncertain  parent- 
age], the  Mamzer  before  the  Nethin  [the  descendant  of  the 
ancient  temple-slaves  or  hierodules],  the  Nethin  before  the 
proselyte,  the  proselyte  before  the  freedman."  As  all  these 
distinctions  were  perpetuated  by  blood,  it  was  a  matter  of 
morale  to  avoid  breaking  down  their  barriers  through  inter- 
marriage. 

Now  the  Samaritans,  even  if  admitted  to  be  "  genuine 

49  For  this  interesting  question,  see  Weber,  op.  cit.  77,  294 ;  Bertholet, 
op.  cit.  255,  and  §§  7,  8. 

50  Whether  or  not,  as  many  now  hold,  Ruth  is  a  tractate  of  the  Vth 
Century  supporting  the  liberal  idea  of  marriage,  at  all  events  its  in- 
corporation in  the  Canon  is  witness  to  the  power  of  liberal  ideas  at  a 
late  date. 

51  Yebamot,  47b:  "The  proselyte  is  like  the  Israelite  in  all  things." 
52Horayot,  iii,  7. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  181 

converts,"  are  treated  by  the  Talmud  as  an  Israelite  caste  of 
much  the  same  nature  as  the  Mamzerim;  they  are  of  un- 
certain origin.  The  reason  for  this  attitude  toward  the  sect 
appears  in  full  in  the  argument  given  in  Kiddushin,  75a,5" 
where  they  are  treated  in  the  same  way  as  the  Mamzerim. 
In  like  terms  a  Mishna  fixes  the  status  of  the  Samaritans  in 
respect  to  Jewish  marriage :  "  These  are  the  people  of  un- 
certain condition  [i.  e.  with  whom  one  may  not  marry]  : 
those  of  unknown  parentage,  foundlings,  and  Samaritans."54 
The  Gemara  likewise  classes  the  sect  amongst  those  peoples 
intermarriage  with  whom  is  forbidden  to  the  priesthood, 
namely,  the  Ammonites,  Moabites,  Egyptians,  Edomites  and 
Nethinim.55  If  the  regulation  of  Dt.  23,  3ff  were  followed, 
the  Samaritans  could  not  hope  for  connubium  with  the  Jews 
until  the  tenth  generation,  or  practically  indefinitely,  and  this 
application  is  actually  made  in  Kiddushin,  75a. 

Now  it  suited  the  policy  of  the  Jewish  Church  to  deny 
connubium  with  the  Samaritans,  for,  that  policy  governed 
such  regulations,  is  shown  by  the  distinctions  made  in  Dt. 
23,  3ff.  The  Samaritans  were  sinful  schismatics;  social  re- 
lationship with  them  meant  the  infection  of  their  sin  in  the 
body  politic.  Intermarriage  with  Gentile  proselytes  was  far 
less  dangerous,  for  the  Gentile  became  wholly  a  Jew,  where- 
as the  Samaritan  in  his  pride  would  feel  he  had  no  spiritual 
benefit  to  receive  from  the  alliance.  It  is,  I  believe,  on  ac- 
count of  this  policy,  which  was  based  on  most  practical 
grounds,  that  the  Jewish  law  aspersed  the  Samaritan 
women ;  by  rendering  these  odious  to  the  religious  sense  they 
attempted  an  effective  barrier  against  intermarriage  with 
that  schismatic  and  Pariah-like  sect. 

In  regard  to  matters  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  priesthood, 

53  Cf.  Mass.  Kut.  27. 

s*  Kidd.  iv,  3  ;  B.  Kam.  38b.  . 

ss  Nidda,  74b.  Also  in  the  criminal  law  concerning  seduction  the 
Samaritaness  is  placed  in  the  same  class  with  the  bastard  or  Nethin 
woman ;  Ketub.  iii,  1 ;  B.  Kam.  38b. 


1 82  THE  SAMARITANS 

so  far  as  participation  in  the  Jewish  institutions  would  have 
given  the  Samaritans  any  prescriptive  claim  thereon,  the 
general  rule  was  their  exclusion ;  they  were  placed  on  the 
same  footing  with  the  Gentiles.  The  most  extensive  regula- 
tion on  the  subject  is  found  in  Shekalim,m  in  the  prescrip- 
tion concerning  those  who  had  the  privilege  of  paying  the 
ecclesiastical  poll-tax  of  the  shekel.  This  Mishna  orders : 
"  Although  they  say,  the  shekel  poll-tax  is  not  to  be  levied 
upon  women  and  slaves  and  children,  yet  if  they  pay.  it  is  to 
be  received  from  them.  If  idolaters  or  Samaritans  pay,  we 
do  not  accept  it  from  them.  Nor  do  we  accept  from  them 
bird-offerings  of  men  or  women  affected  with  gonorrhoea, 
or  those  of  women  in  childbirth,  or  of  women  who  are  in  the 
condition  of  sin  or  under  ritual  penalty.  But  vows  and 
offerings  may  be  accepted  from  them.  This  is  the  rule :  All 
that  is  vowed  and  freely  offered  is  to  be  accepted  from  the 
givers ;  all  that  does  not  come  through  vow  or  freewill  offer- 
ing is  not  to  be  accented  from  them.  And  so  it  is  laid  down 
according  to  Ezra,  as  it  is  said  [Ezra  4,  3]  :  There  is  noth- 
ing in  common  between  you  and  us  in  the  building  of  a  house 
to  our  God."  The  temple-tax  was  the  privilege  of  the  faith- 
ful alone,  and  to  allow  its  payment  by  the  Samaritans 
would  have  been  an  acknowledgment  of  their  full  rights  in 
the  community;  it  was  essential  to  exclude  them  from  any 
legal  claim  upon  the  privileges  of  Jerusalem. 

But  this  exclusion  from  the  payment  of  the  temple-tax  did 
not  prohibit  them  from  rendering  the  voluntary  gifts  of 
"vows"  and  "freewill  offerings"  (Nedarim,  Nedabot), 
which  were  readily  accepted  from  them  even  as  from  Gen- 
tiles, according  to  the  Mishna  above  quoted.  Also  they 
could,  like  the  Gentiles,  present  the  tithes  and  priest's  offer- 
ing (Teruma),  and  make  "  dedications."  (Kaddishin).57  As 

56  i,  5  ;  Mass.  Kut.  2. 

57  Teruma,  iii,  9. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  1 83 

for  tithes,  they  are  said  to  offer  them  rightly. 5S  The  contri- 
bution of  tithes  and  the  priest's  offering  may  be  understood 
as  of  Samaritans  dwelling  upon  Jewish  soil,  where  these 
taxes  were  regarded  as  civil  taxes,  levied  on  all  land-owners 
alike.  In  this  connection  we  may  also  recall  Josephus's  note 
that  down  into  his  century  the  Samaritans  frequented  the 
temple  feasts.59 

Concerning  the  legitimacy  of  the  tithes  raised  by  the 
Samaritans  in  their  own  territory  and  applied  to  their  own 
priesthood,  contradiction  exists  in  the  Jewish  regulations. 
According  to  Masseket  Kutim,  9,  "  their  produce  is  forbid- 
den, as  in  the  case  of  Gentiles,"  —  i.  e.  it  was  not  tithed,  and 
was  therefore  forbidden  to  the  Israelite.  This  is  illustrated 
by  Dcmai,  vii,  4,  where  there  is  a  prescription  for  the  proper 
tithing  of  wine  purchased  from  the  Samaritans.  But  a  To- 
seftacu  holds  that  while  merchandise  in  any  place  is  uncertain 
(demai)  as  to  its  tithing,  yet  the  produce  brought  in  by  the 
Samaritans  is  undisputed.  This  opposition  seems  to  be  a 
contradiction  between  earlier  and  later  views.  The  latter 
would  be  the  logical  position  of  Judaism,  as  tithes  applied  to 
an  outlaw  clergy  would  not  suit  any  strict  sacerdotal  theory. 
On  the  other  hand,  especially  in  earlier  ages,  when  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans  were  often  closely  intermingled  on  Pa- 
lestinian soil,  it  may  have  been  argued  that  the  tithes  having 
been  rightly  set  aside,  the  food  would  not  be  affected  by  the 
actual  destination  of  the  tithes,  while  there  are  also  patent 
practical  reasons  why  a  purchaser  would  not  wish  to  pay  a 
double  tax.  Indeed  in  another  case  we  find  a  letting  down 
of  rigorous  barriers  for  expediency's  sake;  according  to 
Masseket  Kutim,  22,  "  the  priests  of  Israel  may  share  the 
tithes  with  Samaritan  priests  in  the  territory  of  the  latter, 
because  they  are  thus,  as  it  were,  rescuing  the  Samaritans 

5SBerak,  47b. 

59  See  above,  Chap.  IX,  note  9. 

60  Tos.  Demai,  3,  3. 


1 84  THE  SAMARITANS 

from  their  own  priests."  The  same  reason  expressed  in 
practical  terms  would  be,  "  Half  a  loaf  is  better  than  none  at 
all."  But  the  same  Halaka  continues :  "  But  not  on  Israelit- 
ish  territory,  lest  the  Samaritans  should  have  a  presumption 
on  our  priesthood."  Naturally  on  Jewish  soil  the  full  tithes 
would  be  demanded  for  Jerusalem;  it  would  be  a  private 
matter  for  alien  residents  if  they  sent  a  further  tithe  to 
Gerizim.  It  also  appears  from  another  dictum  of  Masseket 
Kutim,  23,  that  the  intention  in  tithing,  quite  apart  from  the 
ultimate  destination,  was  respected  by  Jewish  law;  an  Is- 
raelite was  forbidden  to  eat  the  food  of  a  Samaritan  priest, 
except  when  the  latter  was  unclean,  and  so  could  not  eat  of 
the  sacred  offerings.  The  corollary  is  that  the  tithes  and 
other  sacerdotal  dues  of  the  Samaritans  were  taboo  to  the 
Jewish  layman,  i.  e.  they  were  proper  tithes.  This  earlier 
attitude  of  Judaism  helps  to  explain  the  Gospel  narratives,  in 
which  the  Jews  appear  as  freely  buying  in  the  Samaritan 
markets.  We  thus  see  that  Jewish  sacerdotal  principles 
were  not  drawn  absolutely  against  the  sect. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  a  provision  of  Masseket 
Kutim,  5,  which  proceeds  to  apply  to  the  Samaritans  certain 
Talmudic  inhibitions  directed  by  the  Talmud  against  the 
Gentiles  :C1  "  We  do  not  give  them  possession  of  immovable 
property ;  we  do  not  sell  them  sheep  for  shearing,  nor  crops 
that  are  to  be  harvested,  nor  standing  timber;  but  we  may 
sell  them  cattle  for  slaughter."  It  was  the  policy  of  the 
Jewish  Church  to  prevent  the  alienation  of  any  part  of  the 
Holy  Land  in  its  control,  and  to  bar  to  others  any  shadow 
of  a  claim  thereto ;  yet  the  application  to  the  Samaritans  was 
only  slowly  made. 

There  remain  to  be  noted  some  miscellaneous  variations  in 
the  observance  of  the  Law  for  which  the  Talmud  condemns 
the  Samaritans.  The  most  important  of  these  is  the  practice 
of  levirate  marriage,  Dt.  25,  5ff,  in  which  point  the  sect  had 

ei  Ab.  Z.  i,  7;  20b. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  185 

certainly  abandoned  the  letter  of  Moses.  In  modern  times 
they  understand  by  the  brother  a  co-religionist  who  lives  in 
the  same  house,62  but  in  Talmudic  days  they  appear  to  have 
explained  the  brother's  widow  as  referring  to  the  woman 
whose  betrothed  had  died,  not  of  the  widowed  wife.  This 
aberration  is  announced  as  the  chief  ground  for  the  excom- 
munication of  the  Samaritans  in  the  lengthy  argument  con- 
cerning them  in  Kiddushin,  75a,  scq.:  If  the  Samaritans  be 
genuine  converts,  nevertheless  they  have  been  excluded  be- 
cause they  practice  Yibbam  only  with  the  betrothed. 

In  the  matter  of  legal  papers  the  Samaritans  seem  to  have 
had  a  different,  perhaps  a  simpler  usage  than  the  Jews,  and 
so  were  excluded  as  witnesses;  the  exceptions  were  in  the 
matter  of  divorce-writs  and  emancipation-papers.  The  rel- 
evant Mishna  reads  :63  "  Every  legal  paper  which  is  sub- 
scribed to  by  a  Samaritan  witness  is  rejected,  except  papers 
of  divorce  and  emancipation.  There  was  a  case  which  was 
brought  before  R.  Gamaliel  at  Kefar-outhenai ;  he  declared 
as  valid  a  woman's  divorce-paper,  whose  witnesses  were 
Samaritans."  The  Gemara  following  contains  a  discussion 
over  this  precedent,  whether  it  is  lawful  for  all  the  witnesses 
to  be  Samaritans.  Also  Masseket  Kutim,  14,  admits  their 
legal  nicety  in  divorce  by  stating  that  "  the  Samaritan  prac- 
tices the  Get,  and  may  be  trusted  to  bring  a  Get  from  a  for- 
eign city  to  an  Israelite."  This  latter  permission  therefore 
classes  the  Samaritans  with  the  Jews,  as  heathens  and  slaves 
were  excluded  from  that  function.64  To  be  sure  there  were 
reasons  of  public  utility  in  allowing  the  Samaritans  to  be 
witnesses  in  such  necessary  legal  matters,  just  as  the  Roman 
government  upon  its  outlawry  of  the  Samaritans  permitted 

62  See  above,  p.  43. 

63Gitt.  i,  5. 

64  For  the  reasons  and  the  law  on  this  general  point,  see  Amram, 
The  Jewish  Law  of  Divorce  177  (Philadelphia,  1896).  The  Get  is  the 
divorce-writ. 


1 86  THE  SAMARITANS 

them  to  act  as  witnesses  so  that  the  public  business  might  not 
be  impeded.05 

Under  this  head  may  be  included  the  charge  that  the 
Samaritans  were  not  scrupulous  in  the  matter  of  betrothal.66 
We  may  presume  that  the  Samaritan  form  or  use  of  the  mar- 
riage contract,  the  Ketuba,  was  different  from  that  of  the 
Jews.  The  whole  marriage  law  of  the  Jews,  especially  in 
respect  to  betrothal  and  marriage,  was  in  so  great  a  flux  in 
the  Talmudic  age,  that  it  is  not  strange  if  the  Samaritans 
had  variant  usages.  Further,  these  people,  in  company  with 
Sadducees,  Gentiles,  slaves,  women,  children  and  apostates, 
are  excluded  from  the  preparation  of  Bible  manuscripts, 
Tephillin  and  Mezuzot.67  It  is  patent  why  they  might  not 
prepare  copies  of  the  Scriptures;  as  for  the  other  articles, 
they,  like  the  Sadducees,  have  never  accepted  the  literal  in- 
terpretation of  Dt.  6,  8f.G8 

Finally,  there  remains  one  cardinal  point  of  doctrine,  al- 
ready referred  to,  wherein  the  Samaritans  differed  from 
Pharisaism.  The  sect  did  not  believe  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  The  specific  authorities  on  the  Jewish  side  for 
this  fact  of  early  Samaritanism  are  Siphre  to  Num.  15,  31 ; 
Sanhedrin,  90b;  Masseket  Kutim,  28;  it  is  also  witnessed  to 
by  many  Christian  writers.69 

But  this  last  difference  is  one  which  distinguished  not  only 
Jew  and  Samaritan,  but  also  within  Judaism  itself  Pharisee 
and  Sadducee.  Moreover  the  difference  is  but  one  of  sever- 
al in  which  we  find  Sadducee  and  Samaritan  agreeing  as 
against  the  Pharisee.  It  is  pertinent  therefore  to  take  up 
here  the  question  of  the  agreements  between  the  great  con- 
servative party  of  Judaism  and  the  northern  sect.70 

65  See  above,  p.  119. 

66  Kidd,  76a,  which  also  condemns  their  conduct  of  divorce. 

67  Mcnachot,  42b. 

68  See  above,  p.  32. 

69  See  below,  p.  250.  For  the  passage  in  Siphre,  see  Geiger,  op.  cit. 
128. 

70  Cf.  Nutt,  op.  cit.  31 ;  Wreschner,  op.  cit.  p.  vii.     The  latter  work 


IN  THE  TALMUD  l8? 

Both  Sadducees  and  Samaritans  denied  the  resurrection 
of  the  body,  —  not,  it  must  be  noted,  the  immortality  of  the 
soul.71  It  is  not  true,  as  alleged  by  Patristic  writers,  that  the 
Sadducees,  like  the  Samaritans,  denied  the  later  portions  of 
the  Canon  ;72  but  they  appear  to  have  assumed  a  depreciating 
position  towards  the  later  strata,  which  contain  proofs  for 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  Jesus 
in  his  argument  with  them  appealed  to  a  Pentateuchal  pas- 
sage. Both  Sadducees  and  Samaritans  clung  to  the  literal 
interpretation  of  the  Sabbath  observance,  denying  the  fiction 
of  the  Erub,  and  so  invalidating  it.  Both  agreed  as  against 
the  Pharisees  in  the  rigorous  fulfillment  of  the  law  concern- 
ing the  use  of  a  carcase,  Lev.  J,  24. 73  Neither  believed  in, 
and  therefore  were  forbidden  to  prepare,  Tephillin  and  Me- 
zuzot.74  In  one  point  the  Sadducees  may  have  agreed  with 
the  Samaritans  in  annulling  a  doubtless  Biblical  prescription, 
that  of  the  levirate  marriage ;  at  least  this  may  appear  from 
the  sarcastic  question  put  to  Jesus  concerning  the  future  pos- 
session of  the  woman  whom  seven  brothers  took  to  wife,  Mt. 
22,  23ff.75 

is  concerned  at  length  with  the  relations  of  Samaritans,  Sadducees 
and  Karaites.  For  elder  literature,  especially  Geiger,  see  Wreschner, 
p.  vii,  note  4.  I  have  not  attempted  to  enter  upon  the  recondite  prob- 
lem of  the  relation  of  the  Samaritans  and  Karaites,  which  latter  sect 
preserved  or  restored  many  elements  of  original  Sadduceeism.  Jewish 
scholars  differ  upon  this  point.  Against  Geiger,  Wreschner  would  find 
Samaritanism  largely  dependent  upon  Karaitism ;  his  arguments  seem 
to  be  based  mostly  upon  minute  points  of  ritual.  For  a  return  to 
Geiger's  position,  see  S.  Rappoport,  La  liturgie  samaritaine. 

71  For  the  Sadducees,  e.  g.  Sank,  gob;  Mt.  22,  23ff. 

72  See  Schurer,  GJV  ii,  411,  who  gives  full  quotations. 

73  For  the  Sadducsean  use,  e.  g.  Choi.  44b.  The  Samaritans  re- 
quired that  the  animal  should  have  been  slaughtered. 

74  See  above,  p.  186. 

75  This  heresy  was  really  not  of  much  account.  In  the  Mishnaic  age 
the  old  law  was  largely  abridged,  and  the  Jewish  lawyers  confessed  it 
to  be  more  honored  in  the  breach  than  the  observance,  Bekorot,  i,  7. 
The  question  later  arose,  which  was  the  more  honorable,  the  assump- 
tion of  such  a  marriage,  or  the  suffering  of  the  shameful  rite  of 
Chalisa.  See  Hamburger,  op.  cit.  i,  928 ;  Edersheim,  op.  cit.  ii,  400. 
Modern  Judaism  has  completely  abrogated  this  survival  of  primitive 
marriage. 


1 88  THE  SAMARITANS 

The  Talmudic  thought  concerning  the  likeness  of  the 
Samaritans  to  the  Sadducees  is  strikingly  expressed  in  a 
Mishna  :76  "  As  for  Sadducee  women,  when  they  undertake 
to  walk  in  the  ways  of  their  fathers,  then  they  are  like  the 
Samaritan  women;  if  they  separate  themselves  to  walk  in 
the  way  of  Israel,  then  they  are  like  Israelites.  R.  Jose 
said :  They  are  always  like  women  of  Israel,  until  they  sep- 
arate themselves  to  walk  in  the  way  of  their  fathers."  Thus 
is  expressed  for  the  Sadducees  much  the  same  accusation 
that  was  brought  against  the  Samaritans,  that  their  women 
are  unclean  from  the  cradle.  And  equally  in  both  cases,  no 
serious  specification  of  uncleanliness  is  charged  against 
either  party ;  indeed  the  Sadducees  stuck  closer  to  the  script- 
ural text  in  this  matter  than  did  the  Pharisees.77  But  the 
above  opinion  must  have  been  due  to  the  Pharisaic  desire  to 
prevent  social  intercourse  and  especially  commbium  with  the 
Sadducees,  even  as  in  like  terms  the  Samaritans  were  ostra- 
cized. This  close  relationship  of  Sadducees  and  Samaritans 
in  doctrine  and  practice,  and  the  Pharisaic  assignment  of 
both  to  much  the  same  category,  arouse  interesting  questions 
concerning  the  historical  connections  that  may  once  have 
existed  between  the  two  bodies.  At  all  events  we  recognize 
that  the  Samaritans  largely  preserved  more  primitive  beliefs 
and  usages  than  the  Pharisees,  and  so  give  valuable  testi- 
mony to  the  character  of  early  Judaism.78 

We  come  now  to  the  difficult  question  of  the  final  drawing 
of  proscriptive  lines  against  the  Samaritans,  a  process  which 
began  in  the  middle  of  the  lid  Century  and  which  came  to  its 
rigorous  conclusion  about  A.  D.  300  with  the  complete  ex- 
communication of  the  sect.    It  has  been  held  that  the  Hadri- 

"6Nidda,  iv,  2. 

77  Gemara  to  above  Mishna ;  cf.  Hamburger,  op.  cit.  ii,  1047. 

78  It  should  be  noted  that  by  the  Mishnaic  age  the  problems  of  the 
law  concerning  both  Sadducees  and  Samaritans  had  become  largely 
theoretical,  and  this  condition  only  increased  in  the  subsequent  cen- 
turies. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  189 

anic  persecutions  drove  the  Samaritans  into  the  denial  of 
their  faith,  and  that  "  the  corruption  of  their  ways  "  which 
ensued  compelled  Judaism  to  outlaw  them.  On  the  other 
hand  the  favor  shown  to  the  Samaritans  by  such  influential 
men  as  Akiba,  Meir,  and  Simon  b.  Gamaliel,  in  the  lid 
Century  has  induced  scholars  to  postulate  for  this  age  a 
closer  rapprochement  between  the  two  communities;79  ac- 
cording to  this  view  the  Samaritans  would  have  taken  part 
with  the  Jews  in  their  rising  against  Rome.  The  subsequent 
excommunication  would  then  be  a  return  to  the  earlier  posi- 
tion. But  I  believe  that  the  discussions  of  the  lid  Century 
were  not  so  much  due  to  any  historical  events  as  to  the  logic- 
al working  out  of  the  principles  of  Pharisaism.  After  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  still  more  after  the  destruction  of  the 
political  hopes  of  the  Jews  in  Hadrian's  reign,  Pharisaism 
won  its  final  victory  by  being  enabled  to  pursue  its  course 
undisturbed.  Judaism  now  became  a  close  religious  com- 
munity. The  worldly  party  of  the  Sadducees  had  disap- 
peared. There  was  no  room  any  longer  for  castes  like  the 
Am-ha-arec.  Proselytes,  if  any  dared  the  terrors  of  the 
imperial  laws,  became  Jews  wholly.  The  old  discussions 
about  the  different  strata  of  the  church  still  remained,  but 
these  were  largely  theoretical,  even  as  were  the  laws  concern- 
ing sacrifice.  Judaism  came  more  and  more  to  be  centred  in 
Babylonia,  and  the  problems  of  Palestinian  soil  were  re- 
lieved. Hence  with  respect  to  the  Samaritans,  we  find  the 
law  drawing  its  logical  conclusions;  this  schismatic  sect 
could  no  longer  be  tolerated.  Some  Jewish  leaders  like 
Akiba  may,  on  liberal  political  grounds,  have  favored  the 
Samaritans;  but  this  tendency  was  suppressed  by  the  fatal 
result  of  Bar-Kokeba's  insurrection,  as  a  result  of  which  even 
that  hero  lost  caste  in  later  tradition.80  Conservative  law- 
yers, on  principle  like  Meir,  or  from  sluggishness  like  Simon 

79  E.  g.  Hamburger,  op.  cit.  ii,  1069. 

80  He  was  known  later  as  Bar-Koziba,  tbe  Deceiver. 


190  THE  SAMARITANS 

b.  Gamaliel,  held  by  earlier  precedents,  or  only  slowly 
changed  their  minds.  But  this  change  of  attitude  developed 
very  cautiously,  and  it  is  a  wonder  that  so  much  law  that  is 
favorable  to  the  Samaritans  is  preserved  not  only  in  the 
Mishna  but  also  in  the  Gemara.  That  many  earlier  Halakot 
were  excluded  from  the  Talmud,  being  preserved  in  the 
Tosefta  or  deposited  in  Masseket  Kutim,  shows  that  while  a 
severe  criticism  of  the  Samaritans  had  already  set  in  by  the 
lid  Century,  it  was  not  able  to  enforce  itself  throughout. 

We  have  noted  above  Akiba's  liberal  attitude  toward  the 
Samaritans ;  his  opinion  is  given  that  "  the  Samaritans  are 
genuine  converts,  and  the  priests  with  whom  they  are  defiled 
are  legal  priests."81  There  is  also  a  Mishna  which  relates 
the  following  anecdote:82  "Again  they  said  to  him  [R. 
Akiba]  :  R.  Eliezer  used  to  say:  He  who  eats  of  a  morsel 
of  the  Samaritans  is  like  one  who  eats  swine's  flesh.  He 
said  to  them :  Be  silent ;  I  will  not  say  to  you  what  R. 
Eliezer  said  in  this  matter."  This  curt  reply  is  an  irritated 
denial  of  Eliezer's  aspersion  on  the  Samaritans.83 

The  position  of  R.  Meir,  the  younger  contemporary  of 
Akiba  is  contradictorily  given  in  the  Talmudic  discussions; 
according  to  some  he  held  that  the  Samaritans  were  genuine 
converts,  according  to  others  that  they  were  not.84  But  the 
composition  of  these  two  views  is  doubtless  to  be  found  in 
the  postulation  of  a  change  of  opinion  on  Meir's  part.  Thus 
it  is  stated  in  Masseket  Kutim,  25,  that  "  R.  Meir  said :  All 
their  wine  is  allowed  except  that  which  is  open  in  the  mar- 
ket."    But  the  following  Talmudic  anecdote  shows  how  the 

81  Kidd.  75b ;  cf.  above,  p.  177. 

82  Shebiit,  viii,  10. 

83  Eliezer's  position  is  much  mitigated,  if  with  Kirchheim  {Intro- 
due  tio,  22;  Septem  libri,  35),  on  the  authority  of  parallel  passages 
(Gemara  to  Sheb.  ler.  19;  Tos.  Pea,  2)  "leaven"  is  to  be  read  in 
place  of  "  morsel."  The  reference  is  then  to  the  Samaritan  lack  of 
scrupulosity  concerning  leaven,  not  all  foods. 

84  Cf.  Choi.  6a  and  B.  Kam.  38b. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  191 

same  teacher  came  to  change  his  opinion.85  "  R.  Meir  sent 
a  disciple,  R.  Simon  b.  Eleazar,  to  buy  wine  of  Samaritans. 
A  certain  old  man  met  him,  who  said  to  him :  Put  a  knife  to 
thy  throat,  if  thou  art  a  man  given  to  appetite  [Pr.  23,  2]. 
R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel  went  and  reported  these  words  to  R. 
Meir,  and  he  uttered  an  opinion  against  the  Samaritans." 
A  similar  anecdote  is  told  of  the  much  later  R.  Abbahu  (c. 
300),  whose  disciple  being  sent  to  buy  Samaritan  wine,  was 
accosted  by  an  old  man  with  the  words,  "  There  are  no  keep- 
ers of  the  Law  here !  "  In  consequence  RR.  Ame  and  Assi 
persisted  until  they  placed  the  Samaritans  in  the  full  status 
of  Gentiles.86  "  The  old  man  "  of  these  anecdotes  is  a  fre- 
quent figure  in  the  Talmud ;  he  is  a  sort  of  oracle,  probably 
representing  popular  opinion,  which  was  often  accepted  by 
the  learned.  The  reason  given  for  Meir's  position  is  that 
"  he  took  into  consideration  the  possibility  of  the  rarer 
cases,"  i.  e.  he  laid  a  general  embargo  on  the  wine,  although 
it  might  be  unclean  only  in  the  minority  of  instances.  This 
decision  affected  only  exposed  wine,  and  so  the  use  of  all 
Samaritan  wine  was  not  interdicted  until  a  much  later 
period.  Meir's  more  rigorous  opinion  is  also  expressed  in 
his  judgment  concerning  the  goring  Samaritan  ox,87  and  the 
prohibition  of  Samaritan  circumcision  of  a  Jew.88  Juda  ha- 
Nasi,  the  compiler  of  the  Mishna,  followed  suit  to  this  rigor- 
ism, and  even  gave  vent  to  the  dictum  that  "  the  Samaritans 
are  like  Gentiles,"  an  opinion  not  in  agreement  with  his 
great  work.89 

^Chol.  6a;  cf.  Ab.  Z.  Jer.  44c!. 

86  Choi.  6a.    For  the  law  concerning  Samaritan  wine,  see  Mass.  Kut. 

25- 

87  See  above,  p.  175. 

88  Ab.  Z.  26b,  seq.  (Menach.  42a).  At  least  such  is  Hamburger's 
interpretation  of  this  difficult  passage,  op.  cit.  ii,  1070.  But  according 
to  Mass.  Kut.  12,  it  is  Meir  who  holds  the  liberal  opinion  against  R. 
Juda.  For  Meir  in  general  on  this  subject,  see  Hamburger,  /.  c,  and 
Appel,  op.  cit.  65. 

89  Ketub.  Jer.  27a;  Berak.  Jer.  11b;  Demai  Jer.  25d. 


192  THE  SAMARITANS 

These  arguments  concerning  Samaritan  wine  are  paral- 
lelled by  the  long  discussion  concerning  the  lawfulness  of 
Samaritan  slaughter  in  Cholin,  3b-6a.  As  we  saw  above,90 
the  earlier  view  allowed  the  meat  if  the  purchaser  tested  the 
good  faith  of  the  Samaritan  vendor.  But  the  question  was 
taken  up  again  in  the  school  of  the  patriarch  Gamaliel  III. 
(c.  250),  and  the  majority  forbade  Samaritan  meat,  for  the 
same  reason  as  that  which  influenced  Meir  in  his  treatment 
of  wine.  But  a  strong  minority  seems  to  have  stood  by  the 
earlier  tolerance;  it  is  reported  that  R.  Yochanan  (c.  275), 
who  is  regarded  by  many  as  the  founder  of  the  Palestinian 
Talmud,  and  R.  Assi  (c.  300),  who  later  excommunicated 
the  Samaritans,  ate  their  meat.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
these  discussions  over  the  lawfulness  of  foods  were  of  seri- 
ous import,  for  their  results  affected  the  social  relations  of 
the  two  sects. 

Such  are  the  discussions  and  decisions  of  the  Tannaim  of 
the  lid  Century,  and  their  followers  in  the  Hid.  The  crisis 
resulted  about  the  close  of  the  latter  century.  The  Talmud 
charges  the  Samaritans  with  having  offered  libations  to 
heathen  deities  in  Diocletian's  reign.91  In  the  same  period, 
in  connection  with  the  anecdote  concerning  Abbahu  and 
Samaritan  wine,  above  narrated,  RR.  Ame  and  Assi  did 
not  cease  their  efforts  until  they  had  excommunicated  the 
sect.92  Of  the  same  Abbahu,  who  at  his  home  in  Caesarea 
must  have  had  considerable  intimacy  with  the  Samaritans, 
an  anecdote  is  told  which  closes  the  drama  of  excommunica- 
tion with  a  touch  of  pathos.  The  Samaritans  said  to  Ab- 
bahu :  "  Your  fathers  had  intercourse  with  us ;  why  do  ye 
not  do  the  same?  "  He  said  to  them:  '  Your  fathers  did 
not  corrupt  their  ways,  but  ye  have  corrupted  your  ways."  93 

90  P.  172. 

™Ab.  Z.  Jer.  44a.. 
»2  Choi.  6a. 

93  Mcgilla,  28a ;  cf.  Ab.  Z.  Jer.  44c!.  Taglicht,  op.  cit.  23,  referring 
to  Ab.  Z.  Jer.  44c!,  shows  that  the  position  of  Abbahu  was  not  as  pro- 


IN  THE  TALMUD  193 

The  Samaritans  had  not  in  matter  of  fact  corrupted  their 
ways,  but  the  schism  had  hopelessly  deepened,  and  Pharisa- 
ism proceeded  to  its  logical  verdict  against  the  hated  sect. 

It  will  be  of  interest  to  note  here  some  further  examples 
taken  from  Rabbinic  literature  of  the  Jewish  attitude  toward 
the  Samaritans  as  exhibited  in  maxims  and  anecdotes. 
There  are  indeed  some  exceptions  to  the  general  story  of 
mutual  unkindness ;  thus  R.  Abaye  lost  an  ass,  and  asked  it 
back,  and  the  Samaritans  returned  it  out  of  respect  for 
him.94  But  popular  life  and  language  were  generally 
harsher  than  the  law.  The  term  "  Samaritan  "  was  a  term 
of  contempt,  as  it  had  been  in  Jesus'  day ;  this  is  exemplified 
in  the  following  saying:  "It  is  the  tradition:  .Whoever 
teaches  Scripture  and  Mishna  only  and  does  not  minister 
to  the  disciples  of  the  wise  men,  him  R.  Eleazar  holds  for 
an  Am-ha-arec,  R.  Samuel  b.  Nachmani  for  a  Boor,  R. 
Yannai  for  a  Samaritan."95  Again :  "  Three  things  make 
a  man  transgress  against  his  own  mind  and  the  mind  of 
God;  these  are,  an  evil  spirit,  the  Samaritans,  and  the  rules 
of  poverty."96 

History  recounts  the  constant  feuds  between  the  two  sects, 
which  seem  .to  have  been  ever  ready  for  mutual  friction.  A 
Mishna  relates  97  how  in  former  times  fire-signals  were  used 
for  conveying  notice  of  the  new-moon  to  Babylonia  by  way 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  Mount  Sartaba,  Agruppina,  and  the 
Hauran,  but  that  the  Samaritans  made  mischief  through  in- 

nounced  as  that  of  RR.  Ame  and  Assi;  that  rabbi  refused  to  follow 
certain  deductions,  whose  corollary  would  be  the  prohibition  of  Sa- 
maritan wine  and  water. 

94  Gitt.  45a.  The  same  passage  contains  a  parallel  story  of  R. 
Chasda,  whose  slave  ran  away  to  Samaritans,  but  the  latter  refused  to 
return  him,  appealing  to  Dt.  23,  16. 

95  Sota,  22b.     Cf.  the  saying  of  Jesus,  Mt.  18,  17. 

96  At  least  this  is  the  reading  given  by  Lightfoot,  op.  cit.  i,  600,  for 
a  dictum  in  Erubin,  41b.  But  I  can  find  no  authority  for  "  Samaritans," 
in  place  of  which  all  accessible  texts  read  "  Gentiles  "  or  "  Worshippers 
of  Stars."     Lightfoot's  reading,  however,  is  plausible. 

97  Rosh  ha-S liana,  ii,  2. 

13 


194  THE  SAMARITANS 

terfering  by  false  signals,  so  that  messengers  had  to  be  sub- 
stituted. While  we  generally  hear  only  of  Samaritan 
violence,  the  Jews  could  retort  in  kind,  as  when  in  a  certain 
year  of  Release  they  plundered  a  Samaritan  market.98 
Numerous  are  the  wordy  debates  which  are  narrated,  often 
occurring  at  Shechem  itself,  through  which  the  rabbis  passed 
on  their  way  to  Jerusalem,  and  sometimes  the  bold  stranger 
barely  escaped  with  his  life  for  aspersions  on  the  Kuthite 
religion."  The  Samaritans  retorted  with  the  ugly  epithet 
of  Bet  Kilkalta,  Cursed  House,  for  Jerusalem,  while  Gerizim 
was  the  House  of  God,  the  Blessed  Mount  (tur  berik).  The 
"  stupid  "  Samaritans  seem  not  always  to  have  been  equal  to 
the  sharp  wit  of  their  opponents.  "  R.  Meir  once  asked  a 
Samaritan  what  his  origin  was.  He  replied,  From  Joseph. 
Not  so,  Meir  replied,  but  from  Issachar,  because  it  is 
written  [Gen.  46,  13]  :  The  sons  of  Issachar,  Tola,  Phuwa, 
Job,  Shimron, —  from  whom  the  Samaritans  are  derived ! 
The  Samaritan  went  to  the  patriarch,  and  repeated  the 
strange  saying  of  Meir.  By  thy  life,  said  the  patriarch, 
he  has  counted  thee  out  of  Joseph,  but  has  not  advanced 
thee  to  descent  from  Issachar!  "10° 

Finally,  the  excommunication  of  the  Samaritans  was 
thrown  back  by  Haggadic  lore  into  the  authoritative  age  of 
Ezra  and  the  Great  Congregation:101  "Ezra,  Zerubbabel 
and  Joshua  gathered  together  the  whole  congregation  into 
the  temple  of  the  Lord,  with  300  priests,  300  trumpets,  300 
scrolls  of  the  Law,  and  300  children,  and  they  blew  the 
trumpets  and  the  Levites  were  singing.  And  they  anathe- 
matized, outlawed  and  excommunicated  the  Samaritans  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  by  a  writing  written  upon  tablets, 

98  Tos.  Ohalot,  18,  16.     So  Taglicht,  p.  24,  but  Zuckermandel  reads 
Goyim. 

99  B  ere  shit  Rabba,  cc.  81,  32,  etc. 

100  Bereshit  R.  c.  94. 

101  Tanchuma,  §   IVayyesheb,  2    (Lublin,   1893  —  not  in  Buber's  edi- 
tion) ;  Pirke  R.  Eliezer,  c.  38. 


IN  THE  TALMUD  195 

and  with  an  anathema  both  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  Court 
[i.  e.,  of  heaven  and  earth]  as  follows  :  Let  no  Israelite  eat 
of  one  morsel  of  anything  that  is  a  Samaritan's;  let  no 
Samaritan  become  a  proselyte,  and  allow  them  not  to  have 
part  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  And  they  sent  this 
curse  to  all  Israel  that  were  in  Babylon,  who  also  themselves 
added  their  anathema." 

The  great  Maimonides  set  his  seal  upon  this  verdict  for 
later  Judaism :  "  By  reason  of  idolatry,  separation  from 
them  was  established,  and  their  slaughter  was  prohib- 
ited." 102 

102  Quoted    by    Taglicht,   op.    cit.   25.     The    Samaritans    retorted    by 
cursing  Maimonides ;  VJD  iv,  191. 


CHAPTER  XL 
THE  TALMUDIC  BOOKLET,  MASSEKET  KUTIM. 

At  the  end  of  the  IVth  Seder,  or  Series,  of  the  Babylonian 
Talmud,  along  with  a  number  of  extra-Talmudical  tract- 
ates, are  found  the  "  Seven  Jerusalemite  Booklets,"  the 
sixth  of  which  is  entitled  Masscket  Kutim,  i.  e.,  De  Samari- 
tanis.  The  classic  edition  of  these  seven  tractates  is  that  of 
Raphael  Kirchheim,  Septan  libri  Talmudici  Hierosolymi- 
tani,  Frankfurt,  1851  (in  Hebrew),  edited  from  the  MS.  of 
Eliakim  Carmoly,  and  provided  with  a  sagacious  commen- 
tary.1 The  sixth  tractate  is  an  interesting  collection  of 
dicta,  some  of  which  are  found  in  the  Tahnudic  literature, 
some  of  which  are  independent  Boraitas,  and  some  Tal- 
mudic  opinions  referring  to  the  Gentiles,  but  now  applied  to 
the  Samaritans. 

The  translation  herewith  appended  is  intended  to  afford 
an  easy  oversight  of  the  strata  of  the  treatise.  In  plain  type 
are  given  such  dicta  as  are  not  found  in  the  Talmudic  litera- 
ture. Small  capitals  indicate  identity  with  Talmudic 
passages;  this  type  is  used  also  where  the  exact  wording  of 
the  source  does  not  appear.  In  italics  are  given  those  Tal- 
mudic dicta  which  in  their  original  meaning  referred  to  the 
Gentiles  alone;  most  of  these  come  from  Aboda  Zara. 

This  critical  discrimination  offers  an  insight  into  the 
process  of  the  Jewish  legislation  concerning  the  Samaritans. 
Most  of  the  independent  Halakot  are  favorable  to  them,  e.g. 

1  An  excellent  English  translation,  with  some  notes,  is  given  in  Nutt, 
Samaritan  Targum,  p.  168.  In  general,  see  Hamburger,  REJud. 
Supplementband,  95 ;  Strack,  RE  xviii,  328,  and  Einlcitung  in  den 
Talmud,  1900,  p.  46;  Schiirer,  GJV  i,  137. 

196 


MASSEKET  KUTIM  197 

Nos.  1,  5,  8,  28,  and  so  may  be  presumed  to  be  discarded 
Boraitas.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Halakot  which  have  been 
bodily  applied  to  the  Samaritans  from  the  law  concerning 
the  Gentiles,  testify  to  the  later  practical  identification  of  the 
two  classes. 

The  supplementary  notes  are  to  be  credited  almost  entirely 
to  the  full  apparatus  of  Kirchheim.  Where  he  corrects  the 
received  text,  I  have  indicated  such  corrections  with  quota- 
tion marks.  I  have  further  carefully  digested  the  Halakot 
with  the  material  given  in  the  preceding  Chapter.  The 
numbering  of  the  Halakot  is  my  own. 

MASSEKET  KUTIM. 
Section  I. 

1.  The  usages  of  the  Samaritans  are  in  part  like  those  of 

the  Gentiles,  in  part  like  those  of  Israel,  but  mostly 
like  Israel. 

2.  We  do  not  accept  from  them  the  bird-offerings 

of  men  or  women  having  issues,  nor  the  bird- 
offerings  of  women  after  child-birth,  nor  sin- 
offerings  or  guilt-offerings.  but  we  accept 
from  them  "  vows  and  freewill-offerings." 

Shek.  i,  5.  The  quoted  words  are  restored  from  the  Mishna. 
See  above,  p.  182.    Cf.  Lev.  12;  15. 

3.  We  do  not  give  them  possession  of  immovable  prop- 

erty, zve  do  not  sell  them  sheep  for  shearing,  or  crops 
that  are  to  be  harvested,  or  standing  timber;  but  we 
rimy  sell  them  "  cattle  "  for  slaughter. 

The  first  clause  is  from  the  Mishna,  Ab.  Z.  i,  7,  those  follow- 
ing are  the  gist  of  the  discussion  in  the  Gemara,  20b.  See 
above,  p.  184. 

4.  We  do  not  sell  them  large  cattle,  even  if  they  are 

maimed,    nor   ass-foals,    nor   calves;   but   we   may 


198  THE  SAMARITANS 

sell  them  that  which  is  maimed  so   it  cannot  be 
healed. 

Ab.  Z.  i,  5.  This  Mishna  is  directed  against  the  unnatural 
crimes  charged  to  the  Gentiles,  of  which  the  discussion  in  the 
Gemara,  15b,  fully  acquits  the  Samaritans.  The  transference 
of  this  prohibition  to  the  Samaritans  is  contradicted  in  15b, 
where  it  is  forbidden  to  sell  only  a  maimed  beast  to  the  Sa- 
maritans. 

5.  We  do  not  sell  them  weapons,  nor  anything 

that  can  do  damage  to  people. 

Ab.  Z.  i,  5,  applied  in  15b  to  the  Samaritans  because  they 
might  sell  to  the  Gentiles.  The  same  rule  includes  all  Jews 
who  might  make  misuse  of  weapons.     See  above,  p.  174. 

6.  We  do  not  give  them  wives,  nor  do  we  take  wives 

FROM  THEM. 

Kidd.  75a.     See  above,  p.  179. 

7.  But  we  (do  not?)  lend  or  borrow  on  usury  with  them. 

The  text  places  the  Samaritans  on  the  same  footing  with 
Gentiles.  But  Kirchheim,  following  Geiger,  argues  that  "  not " 
should  be  inserted,  referring  to  the  exception  made  against  the 
Samaritans  of  Caesarea,  with  whom,  because  of  their  perver- 
sion, the  laws  of  usury  obtained;  Ab.  Z.  Jcr.  44d.  N.  B.  the 
adversative  "  but."     See  above,  p.  174. 

8.  We  give  them  the  gleanings  and  the  forgotten  sheaf 

and  the  corner  of  the  field ;  and  they  have  the  custom 
of  the  forgotten  sheaf  and  the  corner,  and  so  may  be 
relied  upon  concerning  the  gleanings  and  the  for- 
gotten sheaf  and  the  corner  in  the  proper  time,  and 
also  concerning  the  tithe  for  the  poor  in  its  year. 
Cf.  Lev.  23,  22:  Dt.  24,  19:  26,  12.     The    "reliability"  of  the 
Samaritans  was  of  importance,  because  the  gleanings  were  not 
tithable.     Hence   Tosefta  Pea,  4,   1,  has  it :     "  The  poor  of  the 
Samaritans  are  like  the  poor  of  Israel." 

9.  But  their  produce  is  forbidden  as  untithed,  as  in  the 

case  of  the  Gentiles. 

For  the  contradiction  of  this  dictum  with  Tos.  Demai,  3,  3, 
see  above,  p.  183. 

10.     They  invalidate  the  Erub  even  as  the  Gentiles. 
See  above,  pp.  170,  187. 


MASSEKET  KUTIM  199 

11.  A  Jewess  may  not  deliver  a  Samaritaness,  nor  suckle 

her  son;  but  a  Samaritaness  may  deliver  a  Jewess 

and  suckle  her  son  in  her   [the  Jewish  woman's] 

quarters. 

Ab.  Z.  ii,  2.  As  Kirchheim's  note  shows,  the  application  of 
this  prohibition  to  the  Samaritans  brings  the  Jewish  commen- 
tators much  trouble,  because  not  only  was  private  intercourse 
with  the  Samaritans  allowed,  but  also  Tos.  Ab.  Z.  3,  1,  con- 
tains just  the  opposite  dictum.     See  above,  p.  174. 

12.  An  Israelite  may  circumcise  a  Samaritan,  and  a 

Samaritan    an    Israelite.     R.    Juda    says:     A 
Samaritan  is  not  to  circumcise  an  Israelite 
because  he  circumcises  him  in  nothing  else 
than  the  name  of  mount  gerizim. 
Ab.  Z.  26b-27a.    For  this  vexed  question  see  above,  pp.  170,  191. 

13.  We  may  lodge  a  beast  in  a  Samaritan  inn,  or 

hire  a  Samaritan  to  go  behind  our  cattle,  or 
hand  over  our  cattle  to  a  samaritan  herds- 
MAN. We  commit  a  boy  to  a  Samaritan  to 
teach  him  a  trade.  We  associate  and  converse 
with  them  anywhere,  which  is  not  the  case  with 
the  Gentiles. 

Ab.  Z.  15b.  See  above,  p.  174.  Kirchheim  approves  a  sug- 
gestion that  for  mesappcrim,  "  converse,"  "  mishtapperim,"  "  have 
one's  hair  cut,"  should  be  read,  comparing  Ab.  Z.  Jer.  7b: 
"  An  Israelite  who  has  his  hair  cut  by  a  Gentile  must  look  in 
a  mirror,  but  if  by  a  Samaritan  he  need  not  look  into  a  mir- 
ror." The  innuendo  of  the  precaution  is  to  the  effect  that  the 
barber  may  cut  his  throat! 

14.  A  Samaritan  suffers  the  Chalisa  from  his  sister-in-law, 

and  gives  a  divorce-writ  to  his  wife.     He  may  be 
relied  upon  to  bring  a  divorce-writ  from  a  foreign 
city  to  an  Israelite. 
See  above,  pp.  173,  185. 

15.  These  are  the  things  we  may  not  sell  them:  carcasses 

not  ritually  slaughtered,  or  animals  with  organic  dis- 


200  THE  SAMARITANS 

ease ;  unclean  animals  and  reptiles ;  the  abortion  of  an 
animal ;  oil  into  which  a  mouse  has  fallen ;  an  animal 
that  is  mortally  ill,  "  or  a  foetus,"  although  Israelites 
eat  them  both,  lest  the  sale  lead  them  into  error. 
And  as  we  do  not  sell  these  things  to  them,  so  we  do 
not  buy  them  from  them,  as  it  is  written  [Dt.  14, 
21]  :  For  thou  shalt  be  a  holy  people  to  the  Lord 
thy  God.  As  thou  art  holy,  thou  shalt  not  make  an- 
other people  holier  than  thyself. 

Kirchheim  reads  for  the  unintelligible  shemen  1B0JB>,  she- 
men  slid  scriplia,  i.  e.,  the  (holy)  illuminating  oil,  which  if  de- 
filed could  be  used  by  the  Jews  (Teruma,  xi,  10),  though  ap- 
parently not  by  the  Samaritans.  For  the  principle  at  the  end, 
cf.  Pesachim,  5ob-5ia:  "As  for  things  which  are  allowed  but 
which  are  prohibited  by  others,  thou  mayest  not  permit  them 
in  the  presence  of  such  people."  In  this  passage  the  Samaritans 
are  adduced  as  an  example,  the  reason  given  for  their  scrupu- 
losity being  that  "  they  confound  one  thing  with  another " ;  see 
the  correct  reading  in  Jastrow,  Dictionary,  1028a. 

16.     A  Samaritan  may  be  relied  upon  to  say  whether 

OR  NOT  THERE  IS  A  TOMB  [in  a  field],  OR  WHETHER 
AN  ANIMAL   HAS   HAD  ITS   FIRSTBORN  OR  NOT.       THE 

Samaritan  is  to  be  relied  upon  concerning  a  tree 
whether  it  is  four  years  old  or  is  still  unclean,  and 

CONCERNING  GRAVESTONES,  BUT  NOT  WITH  REGARD 
TO   THE   CLEANLINESS   OF   OVERHANGING   BOUGHS   OR 

protruding  boughs;  nor  concerning  the  land  of 
Gentiles,  nor  concerning  the  bet-peras,  because 
they  are  open  to  suspicion  in  all  these  things. 
This  is  the  principle:  they  are  not  to  be  be- 
lieved IN  ANY  MATTER  IN  WHICH  THEY  ARE  OPEN 
TO  SUSPICION. 

See  Nidda,  vii,  4,  and  the  Gemara  following,  57a.  For  the 
uncircumcised  tree,  cf.  Lev.  19,  23.  "  Overhanging  boughs,"  etc., 
make  precincts  that  can  harbor  uncleanliness.  Bet-peras  is  an 
area  of  land  rendered  unclean  by  the  presence  of  bones. 


MASSEKET  KUTIM  201 


Section  II. 

17.  We  do  not  buy  meat  from  a  Samaritan  except 

that  of  which  he  himself  eats,  nor  strings  of 
birds  unless  he  first  puts  them  into  his  mouth. 
We  do  not  buy  offhand  what  he  would  give  to 
Israelites,  for  they  have  been  suspected  of  giving 
Israelites  flesh  of  ritually  unclean  carcasses. 
Choi  3b  seq.    See  above,  p.  172. 

18.  The  Samaritan  is  on  the  same  footing  with  the  Israel- 

ite in  respect  to  all  damages  laid  down  in  the  law. 
The  Israelite  who  slays  a  Samaritan,  or  a 
Samaritan  who  slays  an  Israelite,  if  uninten- 
tionally, is  to  go  into  exile  [i.  e.,  to  a  city  of 
refuge]  ;  if  intentionally,  he  is  to  be  slain. 

Makkot,  ii,  4,  reads :  "  Everyone  is  to  go  to  a  city  of  refuge 
for  slaying  an  Israelite,  and  an  Israelite  is  to  go  to  a  city  of 
refuge  for  slaying  anyone.  The  alien  resident  (Ger-toshab)  is 
excepted ;  he  does  not  go  to  a  city  of  refuge  except  for  slaying 
an  alien  resident."  A  following  Boraita,  8b,  has  it  that  "  a 
slave  or  a  Gentile  goes  to  a  city  of  refuge  or  receives  lashes 
on  account  of  an  Israelite,  and  an  Israelite  the  same  on  account 
of  a  Gentile  or  slave."  But  with  Kirchheim,  for  "  Gentile  "  in 
this  Boraita  should  be  read  "  Samaritan,"  inasmuch  as  the 
Mishna  and  its  Gemara  treat  the  Gentile  separately  under  the 
head  of  the  Ger-toshab. 

19.  If  the  ox  of  an  Israelite  gore  the  ox  of  a  Samar- 

itan, it  goes  free.  But  in  the  case  of  the  ox 
of  a  Samaritan,  if  it  is  its  first  offence,  it  is 
to  pay  half  the  damage;  if  a  subsequent  of- 
fence, the  full  damage.  r.  meir  says  :  the 
ox  of  a  Samaritan  which  gores  the  ox  of  an 
Israelite,  whether  it  be  the  first  offence  or 
the  second,  is  to  pay  the  full  damage  and  at 
the  highest  appraisement. 
B.  Kamma,  38b ;  see  above,  p.  175. 


202  THE  SAMARITANS 

20.  Their  cheeses  are  allowed.     R.  Simon  b.  Eleazar  says : 

To  wit,  the  cheeses  of  householders,  but  those  of 
dealers  are  forbidden. 

For  "  dealers  "  Kirchheim  would  read,  on  the  strength  of  his 
MS,  "  villagers,"  kepharim. 

21.  Their  pots  and  presses  in  which  they  are  accus- 

tomed TO  MAKE  WINE  AND  VINEGAR  ARE  FORBIDDEN. 

This  law  applies  to  the  Gentiles  in  Ab.  Z.  ii,  6.  But  Ab.  Z. 
Jer.  44d,  expands  it  so  as  to  include  the  Samaritans :  "  The 
cooked  foods  of  the  Samaritans  are  allowed.  This  law  he  (R. 
Eleazar)  announced  concerning  a  food  which  they  do  not  pre- 
pare with  wine  or  vinegar." 

22.  The  priests   of   Israel   may  share   the   priestly   dues 

with  the  Samaritan  priests  in  the  territory  of  the  lat- 
ter, because  they  are  thus,  as  it  were,  rescuing  the 
Samaritans  from  their  priests;  but  not  on  Israelite 
territory,  lest  they  should  have  a  presumption  on  our 
priesthood. 
See  above,  p.  183. 

23.  If  a  Samaritan  priest,  when  he  is  unclean,  eats  and 

gives  of  his  food  to  an  Israelite,  it  is  permitted ;  if  he 
is  clean,  the  Israelite  is  forbidden  to  eat  of  his  food. 
See  above,  p.  184. 

24.  We  do  not  buy  "  bread  "  from  a  Samaritan  baker 

at  the  end  of  the  passover  until  after  three 
bakings,  nor  from  householders  until  after 
three  Sabbaths,  nor  from  villagers  until 
after  three  makings.  When  does  this  apply? 
When  they  have  not  celebrated  the  Feast  of  Un- 
leaven  at  the  same  time  with  Israel,  or  have 
anticipated  it  by  a  day;  but  if  they  celebrate  the 
feast  with  Israel,  or  are  a  day  later,  their  leaven  is 
permitted.  R.  Simon  forbids  it  [in  general],  because 
they  do  not  know  how  to  observe  the  feast  like  Israel. 
Kirchheim  compares  Tos.  Pesach.  2,  and  Orla  Jcr.  sub.,  ii,  6, 


MASSEKET  KUTIM  203 

which,  with  other  variations,  read  "  leaven."  For  the  Samaritan 
observance  of  the  laws  of  leaven,  see  above,  p.  171.  Observe 
that  the  restrictions  announced  here  against  Samaritan  leaven 
are  dependent  upon  the  variation  of  the  Samaritan  calendar  from 
the  Jewish. 

25.  Formerly  they  said  :     The  wine  of  Kador  is  for- 

bidden because  of  [the  proximity  of]  Kephar 
Pansha.  This  they  changed  to  the  effect 
that  wherever  the  people  are  suspected  of 
mingling  with  the  gentiles,  wine  that  is  open 
is  forbidden,  that  which  is  sealed  is  allowed. 
R.  Meir  said :  All  their  wine  is  allowed  except 
that  which  is  open,  if  it  is  in  the  market.     But  the 

WISE  MEN  SAID!  THAT  WHICH  IS  OPEN  IN  ANY 
PLACE    IS    PROHIBITED,    THAT    WHICH    IS    SEALED    IS 

allowed;  that  which  is  BORED  INTO  and  then 

SEALED  IS  AS  THOUGH  SEALED. 

Ab.  Z.  31b;  Ab  Zar.  Jer.  44d.  (For  the  places  see  Chapter 
VIII,  §  1.)  The  opinion  of  R.  Meir  is  in  contradiction  of  that 
assigned  to  him  in  Choi.  6a.  See  for  the  general  subject  and 
the  ambiguity  of  Meir's  position,  p.  190. 

26.  Their  jars  if  new  are  permitted,  if  old  are  prohibited. 

Ab.  Z.  ii,  4;  33a. 

27.  Why   are   the    Samaritans    forbidden   to   marry   into 

Israel  ?  Because  they  are  mingled  with  the  priests  of 
the  high  places.  R.  Ishmael  said :  They  were  gen- 
uine  converts   at   first.     Wherefore   were   they 

FORBIDDEN  ?  BECAUSE  OF  THEIR  BASTARDS,  AND 
BECAUSE     THEY     DO     NOT     MARRY     THE     BROTHER'S 

WIDOW. 

Kidd.  75b,  where  Ishmael  appears  only  with  the  opinion  that 
the  Samaritans  are  lion-converts.     See  above,  p.  176. 

28.  When  shall  we  take  them  back?    When  they  renounce 

Mount  Gerizim,  and  confess  Jerusalem  and  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead.  From  this  time  forth  he  that 
robs  a  Samaritan  shall  be  as  he  who  robs  an  Israelite. 
For  the  Jewish  condemnation  of  Samaritan  eschatology,  see 
above,  p.  186. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  SAMARITANS.1 

§    I.       INTRODUCTORY. 

It  is  proposed  in  the  present  Chapter  to  give  a  digest  of 
the  Samaritan  theology.  Such  a  presentation  is  exposed  to 
the  scientific  criticism  that  it  avoids  the  historical  processes 
of  the  development  of  doctrines.  But  the  writer  would 
meet  this  criticism  by  his  intention  to  note  carefully  the 
more  important  changes  in  the  theology,  while  withal  he 
submits  that  to  do  full  chronological  justice  to  the  subject  a 
whole  volume  based  upon  many  exhaustive  investigations 
would  be  required.  However,  he  has  reached  the  opinion 
that  Samaritanism  had  practically  attained  its  ripeness  by 
the  IVth  Century  A.  C,  when,  in  the  teachings  of  its  great 
theologian  Marka,  all  the  elements  of  its  doctrine  are  found 
at  hand.  Karaitism  may  subsequently  have  influenced  prac- 
tice, and  Islam  has  largely  affected  theological  expression, 
while  it  cast  the  doctrine  of  God  into  a  more  Deistic  mould 
and  affected  especially  the  eschatology.  But  in  general  we 
are  not  doing  violence  to  historic  method  in  regarding  Sa- 
maritan theology  from  its  first  literary  monuments  in  the 

1  For  the  literature,  besides  the  works  of  the  earlier  scholars,  as 
Reland  and  Cellarius  (consult  Bibliography),  see  especially  Gesenius, 
De  Samaritanoriim  theologia;  de  Sacy  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition 
of  the  Epistles  in  N.  ct  E.;  Petermann,  Reiscn  im  Orient,  i,  269;  RE 
ed.  1,  s.  v.  Samaritaner;  Kautzsch  in  the  2d  and  3d  editions  of  the  same ; 
Heidenheim,  in  introductions  to  his  Bibliotheca  Samaritana,  and  nu- 
merous articles  in  DVJ;  Nutt,  Samaritan  Tar  gum;  Hamburger,  in 
REJud.  ii,  .y.  v.  Samaritaner ;  Cowley,  Some  Remarks  on  Samaritan 
Literature  and  Religion,  JQR  viii,  562. 

204 


THEOLOGY  205 

IVth  Century  down  to  our  own  time  as  a  whole  which  may- 
be systematically  digested. 

Also  we  can,  from  external  if  not  sure  internal  evidence, 
trace  Samaritan  doctrine  farther  back  than  the  IVth  Cen- 
tury. The  Jewish  notices  of  the  sect,  which  have  been 
studied  in  the  three  preceding  Chapters,  throw  invaluable 
light  upon  its  theology.  So  far  as  we  can  learn  from  these 
extraneous  sources  the  general  outlines  of  Samaritanism 
were  already  fixed  in  the  1st  and  lid  Centuries.  Therefore 
while  we  possess,  apart  from  the  Pentateuch  and  some  few 
Hellenistic  fragments,  no  literature  that  can  be  surely  as- 
signed to  an  earlier  date  than  Marka,  we  must  infer  that 
the  greater  part  of  the  theology  as  we  have  it  is  the  precipi- 
tate of  the  age  at  or  before  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era.  The  chief  exception  would  lie  in  eschatology.  And 
if  the  contention,  now  generally  accepted  even  by  Jewish 
scholars  be  correct,  that  the  Samaritans  are  but  a  Jewish 
sect,  then  we  must  hold  that  their  theology  has  developed 
in  a  straight  and  consistent  course  ever  since  the  schism 
from  Judaism.  This  development  has  gone  along  on  the 
whole  pari  passu  with  the  theology  of  the  latter  religion. 
No  intellectual  independence  is  to  be  found  in  our  sect;  it 
was  content  to  draw  its  teachings  and  stimulus  from  the 
Jews,  even  long  after  the  rupture  was  final.  Nevertheless, 
it  possessed  a  certain  patriotic  hardiness  which  enabled  it  to 
preserve  its  own  characteristic,  and  in  many  cases  to  main- 
tain the  elder  and  more  conservative  position  as  against 
progressive  Pharisaism.  And  that  Samaritanism  is  a  wit- 
ness to  earlier  phases  of  Jewish  thought  than  later  Jewish 
orthodoxy  is  evident  in  several  points,  but  most  of  all  in  the 
eschatology.  While  the  doctrine  of  this  department  is 
voiced  in  liturgical  pieces  which  may  all  or  in  large  part 
date  from  the  Islamic  period,  nevertheless  in  great  part  it 
represents  the  fluctuating  eschatological  notions  which  were 
in  the  air  in  the  centuries  just  before  and  after  the  begin- 


2o6  THE  SAMARITANS 

ning  of  our  era.  Our  subject  therefore  takes  us  back  to  the 
original  womb  of  Judaism  from  which  the  sect  sprang. 

To  make  a  rough  historic  division  of  Samaritan  theology, 
we  may  divide  it  into  the  age  before  Marka  (the  IVth  Cen- 
tury) ,  and  that  subsequent  to  him.  The  latter  again  may  be 
subdivided  by  the  point  where  Islamic  influences  begin  to 
evince  themselves;  this  epoch  may  be  dated  about  the  end 
of  the  1st  Millennium.2  With  Marka  and  his  age,  celebrated 
in  the  traditions  concerning  Baba  Rabba,  we  have  evidence 
of  a  positive  intellectual  development  of  theology.  There  is 
the  sudden  appearance  of  extensive  Haggadic  literature, 
while  a  certain  manifestation  of  Rabbinism  comes  to  the 
front,  testified  to  by  Baba  Rabba's  appointment  of  lay  doc- 
tors to  the  despite  of  the  priests.  This  development  is  the 
reflex  of  the  processes  in  Judaism  which  were  finding  im- 
mortal expression  in  Talmud  and  Haggada.  The  influence 
of  Islam  does  not,  as  already  observed,  contribute  much 
materially  to  Samaritan  theology,  but  nevertheless  it  gives  a 
turning-point  which  is  valuable  at  least  for  purposes  of 
chronology. 

In  the  following  exposition  I  have  made  use  chiefly  of  the 
Samaritan  Epistles  to  European  scholars,  and  of  the  Lit- 
urgy. In  any  sect  it  is  the  prayers  and  hymns  which  most 
truly  represent  its  actual  religion.  The  later  works,  the  the- 
ological treatises  and  commentaries,  do  not  add  much  to  the 
general  knowledge  of  our  subject.  With  reference  to  the 
subsequent  development  of  theology,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
bloom  of  Haggadic  thought  which  is  most  exuberant  in 
Marka  does  not  maintain  its  hold  on  the  sect.  The  Samari- 
tans fell  back  into  the  prosaic  type  characteristic  of  them,  so 
that  their  theology  has  become  a  hard  and  dry  product  with 
little  imagination  and  spiritual  afflatus.  I  trust  the  full 
apparatus  of  references  will  give  credence  to  my  statements 
and  also  that  they  may  be  of  use  to  scholarly  readers. 

2  See  Chapter  XIV  on  the  literature  of  the  Samaritans. 


THEIR  CREED  207 


§  2.     the    samaritan  creed. 

We  say:  My  faith  is  in  thee,  Yhwh;  and  in 
Moses  son  of  Amram,  thy  Servant;  and  in  the  Holy 
Law  ;  and  in  Mount  Gerizim  Beth-El;  and  in  the  Day 
of  Vengeance  and  Recompense.3 

Such  is  the  Samaritan  confession  of  faith,  constantly  ap- 
pearing in  the  literature.  It  takes  its  place  alongside  of  the 
Christian  Creed,  and  of  Islam's  confession,  "  There  is  no 
God  but  God,  and  Mohammed  is  his  prophet."  The  state- 
ment is  parallel  to  the  latter  religion's  six  articles  of  faith, 
which  consist  in  belief  in  God,  in  his  angels,  his  scriptures, 
his  prophets,  the  resurrection  and  Day  of  Judgment,  and  in 
God's  absolute  decree.4  The  first  three  points  of  the  Sa- 
maritan creed  are  identical  with  the  cardinal  beliefs  of  Ju- 
daism, while  the  fourth  is  the  cause  of  schism  between  the 
two  communities.  These  first  four  points  sometimes  ap- 
pear by  themselves,5  the  fifth  article  concerning  the  Latter 
Things  being  a  later  addition  to  the  Samaritan  theology. 
In  the  discussion  of  our  theme  we  cannot  do  better  than 
follow  the  formal  scheme  of  this  creed. 

§    3.       THE   BELIEF    IN    GOD;    ANGELS,    CREATION,    ETC. 
(i.)       THE  ONE  GOD. 

The  doctrine  of  the  oneness,  the  uniqueness,  and  the  spir- 
ituality of  God  is  the  supreme  theme  of  Samaritan  theology, 
and  he  is  the  sole  object  of  all  worship.  The  character  of 
the  Samaritan  notion  of  God  may  be  appreciated  from  the 
following  passage  of  a  hymn :  6 

3Ep.  to  the  Brethren  in  England,  1672,  N.  et  E.  173  (tr.  181)  ;  1  Ep. 
to  Ludolf,  Ludolf,  Ep.  Sam.  8;  Epistle  of  Mashalma,  DVI  i,  100;  BS 
ii,  No.  xxiv. 

4  Sale,  Koran,  Prelim.  Disc.  §  4. 

5  BS  ii,  No.  xl ;  N.  et  E.  179,  223. 

6  Gesenius,  CS    100. 


208  THE  SAMARITANS 

There  is  nothing  like  him  or  as  he  is ; 

There  is  neither  likeness  nor  body. 
None  knows  who  he  is  but  he  himself, 

None  is  his  creator  or  his  fellow. 
He  fills  the  whole  world, 

Yet  there  is  no  chancing  upon  him. 
He  appears  from  every  side  and  quarter, 

But  no  place  contains  him. 
Hidden  yet  withal  manifest,  he  sees 

And  knows  everything  hidden. 
Hidden  nor  appearing  to  sight, 

Nothing  is  before  him  and  after  him  nothing. 

The  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  is  based  upon  the  for- 
mula of  the  Shema,  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Yhwh  thy  God  is 
one  Yhwh,"7  but  it  is  generally  expressed  in  the  terms  of 
Islam,  "  There  is  no  God  but  God."  This  is  the  beginning 
and  end,  the  constant  refrain  of  all  piety.  The  doctrine 
appears  aggressively  in  the  polemic  against  the  Christian  be- 
lief in  distinctions  within  the  Godhead,  and  Gnostic  ideas 
of  emanation.  The  polemic  is  constantly  expressed  in  such 
language  as  the  following :  "  O  Being  of  unity,  who  hast 
no  fellow,  no  second,  nor  colleague."  The  last  term,  shatcph 
corresponds  to  the  Arabic  sharik,  which  with  its  collateral 
forms  is  frequently  used  in  the  Koran  in  the  prohibitions 
against  "  associating "  anything  with  God.8  In  another 
hymn  the  opening  stanzas  evidently  antagonize  Christian 
Trinitarianism  :9  "  God  is  the  one  without  plurality,  the 
first  before  all  that  was  made  in  plurality,  the  Head  so  that 
naught  arose  from  plurality.  He  is  found  for  what  he  is, 
another  comes  not  in  the  count.     There  is  no  place  sufficient 

7  There  is  evidence  of  the  use  of  the  Shema,  BS  ii,  191,  bott. 

8  CS  No.  ii,  10.  Shoteph  is  used  in  Talmudic  literature  in  like  way. 
The  Arabic  equivalent  appears  in  Lib.  Jos. 

9  BS  ii,  No.  xxiii. 


IDEA  OF  GOD  209 

for  him  that  plurality  may  be  comprehended  therein.  He 
is  Yhwh,  and  is  not  to  be  inwardly  distinguished  (TrD'1). 
.  .  .  There  is  known  no  second  who  has  wrought  with 
him.  .  .  .  He  has  no  instruments  and  no  hands,  no 
equal  and  hypostatization  (»TTD).  " 

The  latter  term  is  evidently  the  hypostatized  Midda,  or 
Attribute,  of  Jewish  Gnosticism.  The  Samaritan  literature 
is  fairly  free  of  such  Gnostic  notions ;  however  Marka  made 
extensive  excursions  in  that  direction,  while  there  are  later 
echoes  of  his  language.  Thus  Marka  represents  God's 
Grace  and  Goodness  as  standing  at  the  right  and  left  of 
Moses.10  The  idea  of  the  Glory,  Kabod,  of  God,  does  ap- 
pear constantly  as  a  hypostatization,  especially  in  connec- 
tion with  the  theophany  on  Sinai.  It  is  identified  by  Marka 
with  the  Angel  which  was  to  lead  Israel  through  the 
desert.11  This  notion  of  the  Kabod  comes  from  primitive 
Judaism,  appearing  first  in  Ezekiel.12  There  is  also  con- 
stant reference  to  the  Shekina,  or  manifest  Residing  of  God 
over  Gerizim;  this  has  been  withdrawn  from  mortal  eye 
during  the  Age  of  Disfavor.13  The  Word  of  Yhwh  ap- 
pears a  few  times  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  after  the 
example  of  the  Jewish  Targum,  e.  g.  Num.  22,  20;  23,  4,  5, 
16;  but  the  hypostatized  Memra  appears  scantily  or  never 
in  the  literature.  God  is  said  to  have  spoken  and  created 
by  his  Word,  but  it  is  especially  taught  that  this  Word  has 
no  existence  by  itself.  There  is  no  development  of  a  Logos- 
doctrine.  An  echo  of  Jewish  Wisdom  literature  is  found 
when  it  is  said  that  "  God  created  the  heavens  by  his  wis- 
dom,"14 but  no  further  development  of  this  notion  appears,, 

10  Marka,  15a. 

11  BS  iii,  101. 

12  Ese.  1,  seq.;  Weber,  Judische  Theologie,  161. 

13  BS  ii,  124,  bott. ;  N.  et  E.  212. 

14  BS  ii,  No.  xiv,  Beth.    Cf .  Prov.  3,  19. 

14 


210  THE  SAMARITANS 

The  Spirit  of  God  receives  scant  attention,  the  references 
to  it  being  based  almost  entirely  on  Num.  n,  28ff.15 

We  thus  find  some  interesting  points  of  connection  with 
early  Jewish  Gnosticism,  but  withal  little  positive  develop- 
ment in  the  way  of  hypostatization ;  Marka's  trend,  doubt- 
less dependent  upon  incipient  Kabbalism,  was  not  pursued 
by  the  unimaginative  Samaritan  mind,  which  was  influenced 
much  more  by  the  hard  Deism  of  Islam.  Despite  the  tra- 
ditions and  opinions  concerning  Simon  Magus,  there  is  little 
to  show  that  Samaritanism  was  ever  Gnostically  minded.16 
Later  theology,  as  we  have  noticed,  denied  all  hypostatiza- 
tion, while  even  such  Scriptural  passages  as  suggested  this 
notion  were  often  emended.  Thus  the  four  places  in  the 
Pentateuch  where  Elohim,  God,  is  construed  with  a  plural 
verb  are  corrected  in  the  Samaritan  to  the  singular  num- 
ber: Gen.  20,  13;  31,  53;  35,  7;  Ex.  22,  9.  The  rendering 
of  "  the  Sons  of  God  "  in  the  Targum  of  Gen.  6,  4  follows 
the  Targum  Onkelos  in  offering  "  sons  of  rulers."  In  Gen. 
48,  16  of  the  Samaritan  Hebrew,  Mal'ak,  the  Angel,  is 
turned  into  Melek,  the  King,  so  as  to  give  all  glory  to  God. 

God's  essence  is  pure  spirit.  Contrary  to  much  Old  Tes- 
tament phraseology,  and  especially  to  apocalyptic  Judaism, 
which  located  God  in  the  highest, —  the  third  or  seventh 
heaven, —  the  Samaritan  generally  can  find  no  local  place 
for  him.  This  spiritual  notion  receives  noble  expression 
in  a  verse  published  by  Gesenius:17  "The  abode  which  I 
shall  have  is  the  place  of  thy  power ;  no  ocean  is  there,  nor 
sea  [cf.  Rev.  21,1],  nor  the  very  heavens  themselves."  In 
his  relation  to  creation,  God  "  fills  the  world."18  Most 
particularly  does  the  Samaritan  theology  dwell  upon  the 

15  E.g.  55"  ii,  116;  No.  xcviii,  stanzas,  ii,  iii.  In  Marka,  38a,  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  classed  with  the  Cloud  and  Fire,  but  in  73a  the  Glory 
takes  its  place. 

™  See  Chap.  XIII,  §  2. 

«  CS  iii,  13. 

18  Ibid,  iv,  5.  But  according  to  a  hymn,  quoted  by  Heidenheim, 
DVJ  iv,  549,  God  built  his  temple  in  the  highest  heaven. 


IDEA  OF  GOD  211 

incorporeality  and  impassibility  of  God,  surpassing  Juda- 
ism in  this  respect.  The  earliest  evidence  of  this  tendency 
is  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  with  its  Targum,  which  latter 
exceeds  even  the  Jewish  Targumists  in  the  avoidance  of 
original  anthropomorphisms.  A  comparison  of  the  Samari- 
tan Targum  with  both  Onkelos  and  the  Greek  in  the  locus 
classicus,  Ex.  24,  iof,  shows  how  far  the  former  went  in 
this  direction.  In  v.  10  by  a  slight  textual  change  the  see- 
ing of  God  becomes  "  they  feared  God,"  and  in  v.  11  the 
having  the  vision  of  God  becomes  "  they  were  assembled 
with  God."  This  quite  outdoes  Onkelos,  who  has  it  that 
"  they  saw  God's  glory,"  and  the  Greek,  "  they  saw  the  place 
where  God  was."  This  anti-anthropomorphic  tendency  is 
carried  to  a  still  greater  extreme  in  Abu  Said's  Arabic  trans- 
lation, in  which  some  600  cases  of  such  revision  are  found.19 
But  in  the  extra-Biblical  literature  this  trend  of  doctrine 
becomes  absolute.  It  is  continuously  taught  that  God  per- 
ceives and  acts  without  the  aid  of  parts  or  senses.  "  He 
sees  with  the  eye  of  wisdom,  but  he  sees  not  with  eyes; 
seeing  what  is  in  the  world,  seeing  but  he  sees  not."20  And 
so  he  hears  without  ears,21  he  made  and  sustains  the  world 
without  a  hand.22  He  speaks  without  mouth  or  voice,  and 
there  is  no  more  body  to  the  utterance  than  in  the  line  of 
writing  which  may  be  rubbed  off  a  tablet.23  Even  the 
mystic  "  Be  "  of  creation  is  uttered  without  a  word.  He 
suffered  no  toil  in  his  work  of  creation,  for  "  he  worked 
without  fatigue  and  rested  without  weariness."24  This  has 
reference  to  the  divine  Sabbath,  and  is  of  course  good  Jew- 
ish doctrine  since  Philo.     Finally  "  he  never  grows  old  for 

19  Gesenius,  De  Pentateuchi  Samaritani  origine,  59.     Further  for  the 
Targumic  use,  see  Kohn,  Zur  Sprache,  etc.,  179. 

20  BS  ii,  No.  xvii,  st.  1. 

21  Ibid.  No.  xxii,  st.  2. 

22  CS  ii,  9. 

23  Ibid,  ii,  5;  7. 

24  Petermann,  Gramm.  Sam.  App.  23 ;  CS  i,  6. 


212  THE  SAMARITANS 

he  has  no  want.25  The  one  standing  exception  to  this  rule 
is  the  constant  reference  to  the  writing  of  the  Tables  of  the 
Law  by  the  finger  of  God;  here  the  effective  anthropo- 
morphism of  Scripture  and  the  reverence  for  the  Law  are 
too  strong  for  the  otherwise  spiritualizing  Samaritan  the- 
ology. 

In  respect  to  God's  moral  nature,  he  is  absolutely  holy 
and  pure  and  righteous;  the  latter  quality  is  especially  taught 
in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Day  of  Judgment, 
which  shall  be  a  time  of  awful  apprehensions  on  the  part  of 
saints  as  well  as  of  sinners.  But  the  quality  that  receives 
the  crowning  emphasis  is  that  of  God's  love  to  his  people; 
he  appears  pre-eminently  as  the  Gracious  and  Merciful  God, 
in  terms  taken  from  Ex.  34,  6ff,  and  after  the  fashion  of 
the  standing  title  in  the  opening  of  the  Suras  of  the  Koran. 
To  give  one  example  of  this  characterization  of  God,  he  is 
"  the  treasury  of  love."  26  It  is  pathetic  to  observe  how  in 
its  litanies  and  hymns  the  petty,  persecuted  sect  has  cher- 
ished its  faith  in  the  mercy  of  God,  a  love  which  seemed  the 
more  intense  because  of  its  limitation  to  that  small  commu- 
nity; it  is  marvellous  how  that  wretched  people  has  clung 
so  passionately  to  this  faith,  which  history  has  but  little 
confirmed. 

On  the  other  hand,  quite  in  line  with  the  severe  avoidance 
of  everything  approaching  anthropomorphism,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  which  was  first  developed  in 
Judaism  and  later  made  the  cornerstone  of  religion  by 
Jesus,  is  ignored  and  even  contradicted  by  the  Samaritan 
faith.  God  appears  as  Father  only  in  the  few  passages  of 
the  Pentateuch  where  his  paternity  for  Israel  is  asserted, 

25  BS  ii,  No.  xxii,  st.  2.  Per  contra,  "  the  Ancient  of  Days,"  Dan. 
J,  13,  and  the  current  Kabbalistic  terms,  "  the  Ancient,"  "  the  Most 
Hoary";  see  Hamburger,  REJud.  ii.  s.  v.  Kabbala.  The  expression, 
"  the  Ancient,"  however,  appears  in  a  XlVth  Century  Midrash,  DVJ 
iv,  209. 

26  BS  ii,  174,  v.  5. 


IDEA  OF  GOD  213 

e.g.,  Ex.  4,  22.  In  this  matter  Samaritanism  adheres  to  the 
elder  Sadducaean  theology,  a  stage  which  was  overcome  by 
the  more  intense  personal  religion  of  the  Pharisees.  Under 
the  influence  of  Islam  this  tendency  went  still  farther  to  the 
extreme.  Abu  Said  paraphrases  all  such  Biblical  passages; 
for  example  in  the  one  just  cited  he  translates  "  my  first- 
born son  "  as  "  my  own  people.27 

As  for  the  divine  names,  God  is  generally  expressed  by 
El,  Ela,  the  Biblical  Elohim  appearing  more  rarely,  as  a 
rule  for  the  sake  of  rhyme, —  either  through  Islamic  influ- 
ence or  from  caution  against  its  plural  significance.  But 
the  great  name  of  revelation,  Yhwh,  appears  constantly 
throughout  the  literature,  without  any  trace  of  that  fear  at 
even  the  writing  of  it  which  characterizes  Judaism.  The 
pronunciation  of  the  name  has  come  to  be  avoided  by  utter- 
ing in  its  stead  KDt$>  (pronounced  Shemma),  "  the  Name," 
corresponding  to  the  Jewish  use  of  DtPH,  e.  g.,  Lev.  24, 
11.28  Yet  the  pronunciation  itself  has  survived  in 
Samaritanism,  whereas  long  lost  in  the  Jewish  Church.29 
It  appears  from  the  Liturgy  that  the  name  was  still  used  in 
the  priestly  blessing  till  a  late  date.30  As  is  well  known, 
Theodoret,  of  the  Vth  Century,  gives  the  Samaritan  pro- 
nunciation as  'lafie,  or  'lafiai.31  In  another  place  I  have 
shown  that  the  tradition  of  the  right  pronunciation  has  sur- 
vived amongst  the  Samaritans  to  our  own  day,  namely  as 
Yahwa.32 

As  for  the  Jews  so  also  for  the  Samaritans,  Yhwh  is 
the  grand  mystery  of  revelation,  and  the  revelation  of  mys- 

27  See  Gesenius,  Pent.  Sam.  59,  n.  202. 

28  This  fact  gave  rise  to  Aben  Ezra's  statement  (Introduction  to 
Commentary  on  Esther)  that  the  Samaritans  taught  that  Ashima 
(2  Ki.  17,  30)  made  the  world. 

29  According  to  tradition,  since  the  days  of  the  highpriest  Simon  the 
Just,  Yoma,  39b. 

30  BS  ii,  117,  v.  26. 

31  Qucest.  in  Exodum,  xv  (ed.  Migne,  lxxx,  244)  :  'la-Be;  Hareticarum 
fabularum  compendium,  v,  3   (Migne,  lxxxiii,  460)  :  'Ia(3oA. 

32  Notes  from  the  Samaritan,  JBL  1906,  p.  49. 


214  THE  SAMARITANS 

tery,  the  cine  to  all  the  secrets  of  God.  It  is  the  great,  the 
glorious,  the  hidden  Name,33  and  there  has  been  no  day- 
like  that  on  which  it  was  revealed  to  Moses.34  It  becomes 
then  the  duty  of  the  illuminated  to  penetrate  the  mystery  of 
the  Name,  which  is  accordingly  subjected  to  processes  of 
Gematria.35  However,  there  is  no  attempt  to  make  any 
magical  use  of  the  formula,  such  as  appears  in  certain 
phases  of  Judaism.36 

Of  the  other  Biblical  names,  Adonai  and  Shaddai  are  in 
frequent  use.  But  especially  favorite  is  the  employment  of 
the  "  I  am  that  I  am,"  or  simply,  "  I  am."  With  this  may 
be  compared  the  use  of  the  same  phrases  in  the  Kabbala; 
however,  the  Samaritans  do  not  appear  to  have  indulged  in 
the  developed  Gnostic  and  metaphysical  interpretations 
found  in  the  Kabbalistic  literature. 

The  frigid  monotheism  of  the  Samaritan  theology  is  re- 
lieved and  enriched  by  an  exceedingly  large  vocabulary  of 
epithets  describing  the  uniqueness  of  God.  In  his  nature 
he  is  the  absolutely  Existent,  the  First,  and  the  Endless,  and 
the  Unlimited,  the  One  before  the  world  and  the  creatures. 
He  is  the  infinite  God,  and  Tohu-wa-Bohu  {Gen.  i,  2),  i.  e., 
the  original  essence  or  source  of  all  things,  by  which  idea 
the  Samaritan  doctrine  overcame  the  notion,  latent  in  the 
Scriptural  verse,  of  the  independent  existence  of  matter; 
elsewhere  he  is  also  called  the  Creator  of  Tohu-wa-Bohu. 
He  is  frequently  termed  the  Root,  as  the  origin  of  all.  He 
is  Creator,  King,  King  of  kings,  King  of  the  worlds; 
God  of  gods,  and  Lord  of  lords;  King  of  our  spirits,  God 
of  the  spirits.  He  is  Might,  the  Mighty  One — an  exceed- 
ingly frequent  epithet ;  he  is  Great,  Strong,  Able,  Enduring ; 
Victor,  Redeemer,  the  Rock  and  Stone  of  Israel,  the  Living 
One  and  the  Wise.      But  the  epithets  manipulated  by  Sa- 

ss  E.g.  BS  ii,  p.  57,  v.  4;  No.  xvi,  Beth;  p.  117  v.  26. 

34  BS  ii,  No.  xvii,  st.  I. 

35  E.g.  ibid. 

36  See  Dalman,  Der  Gottcsname  Adonai,  40. 


IDEA  OF  GOD  215 

maritan  piety  would  be  more  than  tiresome  in  their  full 
enumeration ;  it  may  suffice  to  refer  the  curious  to  two 
Hymns  published  by  Heidenheim,  each  consisting  of  twen- 
ty-two verses,  in  alphabetic  acrostic,  and  each  verse  con- 
taining four  epithets  beginning  with  the  cue-letter  of  the 
verse.37 

The  Existent  One,  itO'yp,  a  most  constant  epithet. 
Heidenheim,  BS  ii,  p.  xxxvii,  would  find  in  this  expression 
the  influence  of  Simon  Magus,  who  called  himself  eo-rws, 
the  Standing  One,  which  equals  the  Hebrew  word,  a  parti- 
ciple of  Dip-  But  the  term  appears  of  God  in  Philo,  e.  g. 
De  nom.  mut.  1052,  and  rather  bears  witness  to  the  in- 
fluence of  Hellenism  upon  the  Samaritan  theology.  The 
same  adjective  is  also  used  of  the  finite  creation  as  that 
which  "is." — The  First,  'Nap;  Endless,  e)lD  ^2',  Limit- 
less,   Dinn  l1?  N1?"!-    —  Before    the    world,     the     creatures, 

no1?!?  'Op,  mm   'Nop The  Infinite  God,     DEN  btt,  BS  ii, 

p.  208,  v.  15, =0  airepavTos.  Cf.  the  Kabbalistic  1'K,  non- 
existence, the  Greek  to  firj  6v,  But  the  Samaritans  did 
not  go  as  far  as  the  Kabbala  in  attempting  to  express  the 
Absolute  One,  and  confined  themselves  to  Scriptural  lan- 
guage.—  Tohu  wa-Bohu,  BS  ii,  p.  21,  v.  22.  Creator  of 
Tohu  wa-Bohu,  Marka,  23b. — The  Root,  "Ip'JJ,  *lp«,  e.  g. 
BS  ii,  208,  v.  15;  Marka,  6b,  to  which  see  Heidenheim's 
note.  The  Simonians  spoke  of  God  as  plfafia  tuv  6\wv.  — 
—  God  of  Gods,  Lord  of  Lords,  Lib.  Jos.  xxix ;  cf.  1  Tim. 
6,  15;  Rev.  17,  14.  Also  Judge  of  Gods,  CS  v,  4;  cf.  Ps. 
82. — King,  God  of  the  Spirits,  CS  iv,  13;  BS  ii.  p.  212,  v. 
12;  cf.  Nu.  16,  22;  Enoch,  39,  12. — The  Might,  n'b'rUcf. 
Mk.  14,  62;  Vita  Adami,  28;  Acts,  8,  10,  where  Simon 
Magus  uses  it  of  himself.  Cf.  Bousset,  Religion  dcs 
Judenthums,  310. —  The  Mighty  One,  etc.,  n'ri'ri,  ^11J, 
IllJ,  rv?l3»-  — Victor,  njnSJ,  Redeemer,  ';*«.  — God  also 
appears,  in  agreement  with  Rabbinic  use,  as  Hiiyo  ii1:*, 
BS  ii,  No.  lxx,  11  j  cf.  BHipn  11J70  b»,  ibid.  No.  xcviii, 
part  5,  1.  3. 

(2.)       THE  ANGELS. 

Reland,  the  great  archaeologist  of  the  XVIIth  Century, 
vigorously  maintained  the  thesis  that  the  Samaritans  pos- 
sessed no  belief  in  angels.38     Some  external  references  and 

37  BS  ii,  Nos.  ci,  cii. 

38  Reland,  De  Samaritanis,  7,  9;  cf.  Hottinger,  Smegma  oricntulc, 
1658,  p.  491 ;  Enneas  dissertationum  philol.  theol.  1662,  p.  18.  See  on 
the  other  side,  Juynboll,  Lib.  Jos.  122. 


216  THE  SAMARITANS 

the  denial  of  the  doctrine  by  the  party  of  the  Sadducees 
(e.g.,  Acts,  23,  8),  supported  this  contention.  But  the  far 
wider  range  of  literature  at  the  command  of  modern  schol- 
arship has  effectually  disposed  of  this  thesis,  except  so  far 
as  it  may  hold  for  earlier  Samaritanism,39  and  an' account 
of  Samaritan  angelology  might  make  a  considerable  chapter. 
In  the  Samaritan  Hebrew  literature  the  prevailing  name 
for  the  angels  is  the  Pentateuchal  term  Mal'akim,  as  an 
equivalent  for  which  Sheliach,  "  deputy,"  is  found.  There 
is  frequent  use  of  "  Host,"  or  "  Hosts  " ;  the  "  Spirits  "  are 
rarely  mentioned.  In  the  Aramaic  literature  the  most  com- 
mon term  is  "  Powers,"  which  also  appear  as  "  Potencies," 
"  Exalted  Ones,"  and  "  the  Celestial  Folk,"  or  "  the  Church 
Above  " ;  also  as  "  Foundations,"  and  the  "  Plenitude  of 
Deity."     These  beings  are  numberless. 

rp^B>,  deputy,  BS  ii,  p.  164,  v.  19  (also  Rabbinic). — 
D'attVI  («as=)  (IIS,  ibid.  p.  77,  He  5. —  flinn,  spirits, 
in  "God  of  the  Spirits,"  ibid.  p.  212,  v.  12;  cf.  Enoch,  15, 
4ff,  and  Greek  to  Num.  16,  22;  so  Heb.  I,  14. — Cherubim, 
BS  ii,  p.  66,  v.  21. —  Powers,  l^n,  as  in  Dan.  4,  32, 
K'Ott>  ^»n,  =  Swa/ieis,  e.  g.  Eph.  i,  21. —  Potencies,  ]TQJ- 
— The  two  Cherubim,  i.  e.  of  the  Ark,  BS  ii,  p.  66, 
Lamed,  v.  21. —  Exalted  Ones,  iX2Z,ibid.  p.  191,  v.  23. — 
Celestial  Folk,  mhy  ay,  ibid.  191,  v.  11;  cf.  Berak,  16b, 
riya  bv  IT^aB-  Cf.  Koran,  37,  8;  38,  69. —  The  Church 
Above,  hyh  Dj?pn  ntwa,  BS  ii,  p.  138,  st.  7.  Cf.  Hcb.  12, 
22f. —  Foundations,  MHO',  BS  ii,  p.  138,  st.  10. —  "Pleni- 
tude," "im^fcO  mnj?,  CS  iii,  8;  see  Gesenius's  note  compar- 
ing the  Mandaic  use  of  mniK  for  angels. —  Angels  with- 
out number,  CS  iii,  8;  so  the  Jewish  doctrine,  Weber, 
op.  cit.   169. 

The  Angels  or  Powers  hold  an  intermediate  place  be- 
tween God  and  man.  With  reference  to  their  relation  to 
Deity,  the  figure  of  the  Angel  in  the  Pentateuch  offered  a 
theological  difficulty,  yet  also  a  means  of  escape  from  the 
anthropomorphic  dilemma.  We  have  seen  above,  that  to 
avoid  the  former  obstacle,  Mal'ak  was  changed  to  Melek.40 

39  Epiphanius  witnesses  to  the  denial  of  the  belief,  Hceres.  ix,  13. 

40  P.  210.     In  Marka,  29a,  33b,  "the  Ruler,"  or  "the  Glory"  is  sub- 
stituted. 


ANGELOLOGY  217 

On  the  other  hand  "  angels  "  is  used  in  place  of  the  Biblical 
Elohim,  where  it  has  a  polytheistic  flavor.  Thus  in  the 
Targum  to  Gen.  3,  5,  the  Serpent  says,  "  Ye  shall  be  like 
angels,"  a  paraphrase  like  that  in  Targum  Onkelos,  and 
probably  in  this  sense  the  expression  "  God  of  gods  and 
Lord  of  lords  "  was  used.  In  the  hymns  the  exchange  is 
sometimes  deliberately  made,  as  in  the  phrase,  "  a  sweet- 
smelling  savor  to  Yhwh/"  where  in  place  of  "  God " 
"  Spirits  "  is  substituted.41 

In  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  heavenly  spirits,  our  litera- 
ture is  in  general  indefinite.  In  reply  to  de  Sacy's  question 
whether  the  Samaritans  believed  in  angels,  the  curt  reply 
was :  "  We  believe  in  the  holy  angels  who  are  in  the 
heavens."42  Indeed  the  modern  Samaritans  appear  to 
have  fallen  into  indifference  towards  this  theologumenon. 
From  a  frequently  recurring  phrase,  "  Powers  and  crea- 
tures,"43 it  might  appear  that  the  former  were  regarded  as 
uncreated;  de  Sacy  is  inclined  to  think  that  the  Samaritans 
regarded  them  as  emanations  of  Deity.44  This  is  indeed  a 
view  which  appeared  in  early  Christianity,  and  in  general  it 
is  to  be  observed  that  except  in  formal  theology  the  question 
of  the  origin  of  the  angels  is  naturally  ignored.  However, 
a  passage  in  a  hymn  shows  that  the  angels  were  regarded 
as  created  beings.  The  reference  reads  as  follows  :45  "  O 
God,  our  God,  who  wast  before  every  creature,  who  made 
and  began  and  finished  the  world  by  himself;  in  Bereshit 
[i.  e.,  at  the  very  beginning]  mighty  creatures  he  created; 
in  wisdom  they  grew  up,  in  perfection  and  with  no  defect." 
Further,  in  a  passage  already  cited,40  "  creatures  "  is  doubt- 
less used  of  one  kind  of  celestial  beings,  as  the  extract  tells 

41 BS  ii,  116,  v.  27. 

42  N.  et  E.  106  (121). 

43£.g.  CS  iv,  8;  BS  ii,  138,  st.  10. 

44  Sam.  Theol.  21. 

45  BS  ii,  181,  v.  iff. 

46  BS  ii,  138,  v.  10. 


218  THE  SAMARITANS 

how  they  and  the  "  Foundations  "  came  down  upon  Mount 
Sinai.  St.  Paul  also  uses  ktictis  in  the  same  way,  of 
spiritual  beings,  Rom.  8,  39.  From  the  passage  quoted 
above,  it  would  appear  that  angels  were  created  on  the 
first,47  not  the  second  day,  as  the  Rabbinic  theology  came 
to  teach,  while  of  the  later  Jewish  doctrine  that  the  angels 
were  an  emanation  from  the  fire  under  the  throne  of  God 
there  is  scarcely  a  trace.48 

As  in  the  earlier  Jewish  theology,  the  angels  are  con- 
ceived of  as  closely  related  to  or  identified  with  the  stars; 
so  in  the  expression,  "  the  heavens  and  their  powers."49 
Thus  at  the  revelation  on  Sinai,  along  with  the  angels  ap- 
pear "  the  winds  and  the  waters  and  the  fires  and  the 
material  elements,"  as  spiritual  existences.50 

There  are  a  few  references  to  a  hierarchy  amongst  the 
angels.  These  are  represented  as  sitting  in  ranks  at  the 
theophany  upon  Sinai,51  and  Heidenheim  has  published  a 
hymn  in  which  the  angels  who  wait  upon  God  in  his  heav- 
enly temple  are  divided  into  classes,  some  of  whom  attend 
to  the  morning  and  evening  oblations,  while  others  of 
higher  rank  perform  the  divine  commissions  in  the  universe, 
receiving  their  orders  through  an  angelic  porter.52     Four 

47  So  Marka,  148b. 

48  Bereshit  Rabba,  c.  78,  Weber,  op.  at.  §  34,  Bousset,  op.  at.  316. 
According  to  Heidenheim  (BS  iii,  pp.  xviii,  xxv)  the  doctrine  of  ema- 
nation appears  in  Marka,  105,  106, —  a  passage  which  he  has  not  pub- 
lished. The  earlier  Jewish  doctrine  taught  that  the  angels  were  created 
on  the  first  day;  see  Jubilees,  ii,  2.  Judaism  subsequently  transferred 
their  creation  to  the  second  day  so  as  to  avoid  the  idea  that  they 
assisted  God  in  his  work.     But  Samaritanism  retained  the  elder  notion. 

49  BS  ii,  19,  st.  11.  It  is  not  clear  whether  in  the  description  ot  the 
stars  of  the  seventh  heaven,  ibid.  No.  xiv,  Beth,  they  are  regarded  as 
animate. 

50  The  identification  of  the  angels  with  the  stars,  as  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  "  the  Lord  of  Hosts,"  is  very  ancient  in  Israel.  The  elemental 
spirits,  belonging  to  the  four  elements,  and  even  to  every  kind  of  crea- 
ture, appear  constantly  from  the  Benedicite  and  the  Book  of  Enoch 
down;  cf.  Enoch,  60,  nff;  Jub.  2,  2;  Gal.  4,  3,  9;  Col.  2,  8,  20.  See 
Bousset,  op.  cit.  317. 

51  BS  ii,  No.  xix,  He. 
**DVJ  iv,  551- 


ANGELOLOGY  219 

angels  are  given  names  and  special  functions,  to  wit,  those 
who  attended  the  ark  of  the  child  Moses,  Kabbala,  Penuel, 
Anusa  and  Zilpa,  the  first  two  also  appearing  as  "  Helpers  " 
of  Moses.53  With  the  exception  of  the  historical  refer- 
ences to  the  Serpent  in  Eden,54  there  are  but  few  allusions 
to  evil  spirits  in  the  literature.55  But  Petermann  learned 
orally  that  the  Samaritans  considered  as  devils  Azazel, 
Belial,  Jasara  (the  hornet,  Ex.  23,  28),  and  also  ranked  in 
the  same  class  the  Cainites  and  the  Nephilim.50  We  thus 
observe  that  Samaritanism  by  no  means  followed  the  ex- 
treme Jewish  development  of  angelology  and  diabolology, 
and  has  been  able  to  withstand  the  doctrines  of  Islam  in 
this  field. 

Kabbala,  j^na  is  represented  as  God's  minister,  in  the 
ninth  heaven,  BS  ii,  p.  26,  v.  2of.  This  being  has  some 
mystical  connection  with  Deity :  "  K  is  the  secret  of  his 
Name,"  p.  85,  v.  13.  (According  to  Heidenheim,  BS  iii, 
p.  xxv,  he  appears  in  Marka,  vi,  260b  [unpublished]  as 
identical  with  God.)  His  function  seems  to  be  like  that 
of  the  Rabbinic  Metatron ;  see  Weber,  op.  cit.  §  37.  The 
etymology  of  the  word  is  entirely  obscure.  May  it  be  a 
personification  of  Qabbala,  the  secret  doctrine  of  God? 
Such  a  theory  supposes  a  confusion  between  initial  Kaph 
and  Qoph,  which  is  possible  if  the  word  were  borrowed 
orally. —  Penuel,  ^NUS  (cf.  Gen.  32,  30),  is  the  Angel  of 
the  Presence,  Jub.  i,  27,  29;  Test.  Levi,  3,  18;  T.  Juda,  25 
(Is.  63,  9).  His  place  is  generally  taken  in  Judaism  by 
Gabriel,  Lu.  1,  19. —  Anusa,  flDUK,  appears  in  the  Kabba- 
listic  literature  as  a  form  of  Enoch  (Enosh),  who  was  the 
Demiurge,  the  Prince  of  the  Presence,  and  even  identified 
with  God  himself. —  Zilpa,  riB^T,  I  cannot  trace  further. — 
According  to  Petermann,  /.  c,  the  priest  gave  him  as  the 
names  of  the  four  great  angels,  Fanuel,  Anusa,  Kabbala, 
Nasi,  whom  the  priest  assumed  to  find  in  Gen.  22,  31,  Ex. 
14,  25,  Nu.  4,  20,  and  Ex.  17,  15,  respectively. 

53  55"  ii,  29,  v.  6;  p.  205,  v.  18. 
5iE.g.  ibid.   112,   Samek,  v.   21. 

55  Cf.  Lib.  Jos.  c.  xxiii,  according  to  which  the  reading  of  the  Lav/ 
has  a  magical  effect  against  the  spirits. 

56  Reisen,  i,  283.  Also  Cowley  notes,  without  further  reference,  that 
"  there  is  a  destroying  angel  Mehablah,  who  corresponds  somewhat  to 
Satan";  JQR  viii,  571. 


220  THE  SAMARITANS 

As  for  the  functions  of  the  angels,  they  are  such  as 
usually  appear  in  Jewish  and  Christian  theology.  In  gen- 
eral they  are  spoken  of  as  "  the  Hidden  Powers,"  57  but 
their  manifestation  has  been  vouchsafed  to  the  Patriarchs 
and  at  the  great  moments  of  revelation.  The  principle  is 
laid  down  that  "  they  are  present  only  at  the  times  of  temp- 
tation." 58  But  the  supreme  moment  of  the  revelation  of 
the  heavenly  powers  was  the  awful  scene  on  Mount  Sinai. 
According  to  almost  every  one  of  the  Midrashic  hymns 
which  repeat  the  story  of  that  momentous  event,  all  spirit- 
ual essences  appear  as  summoned  to  witness  and  add 
dignity  to  the  scene,  all  Powers  and  Creatures,  the  spirits 
of  all  the  elements,  the  lightnings  and  thunders,  the  stars 
and  their  constellations ;  in  serried  ranks  this  Church  Above 
assembles,  while  below  gather  the  tribes  of  Israel,  the  angels 
themselves  glorying  in  the  giving  of  the  Law. 

The  passage  summarized  is  found  in  BS  ii,  No.  xix, 
p.  77,  He.  Cf.  p.  45,  Mem,  Samek;  p.  in,  Nun;  No. 
xxxiv;  CS  iii,  8;  iv,  8;  etc.  This  Midrashic  treatment, 
based  on  Dt.  33,  2,  is  parallel  to  that  of  the  Jewish  litera- 
ture (see  Weber,  op.  cit.  §  57;  cf.  Hcb.  12,  i8ff),  with 
some  original  details.  Moses  appears  more  exalted  than 
in  the  Jewish  Midrash,  for  here  the  angels  do  him  rever- 
ence. The  Samaritan  doctrine  also  holds  an  independent 
position  in  one  important  point ;  it  does  not  allow  that 
the  angels  had  anything  to  do  with  the  mediation  of  the 
law  to  Moses.  "  God  spoke  with  all  Israel,  speaking  with- 
out an  interpreter  (repeater),"  »JW3  (BS  ii,  139,  st.  16). 
Samaritanism  insists  on  the  immediate  gift  of  the  Law 
written  by  God's  finger  to  Moses,  in  contrast  to  the  Jew- 
ish dogma  that  angels  were  the  mediators,  Jub.  1,  27-c.  2; 
Philo,  De  Somniis,  642  M;  Josephus,  AJ  xv,  5,  3;  Gal. 
3,  19;  etc. 

This  revelation  of  the  Hidden  Powers  is  unique,  but 
nevertheless  the  heavenly  spirits  still  have  communion  with 
the  Faithful  on  earth,  and  will  take  their  part  in  the  deter- 

"  E.g.  CS  iv,  n. 

r,s  BS  ii,  7,  No.  v.  Marka,  2a,  has  a  like  phrase,  but  uses  it  in  a 
different  sense.  The  former  passage  proceeds  to  enumerate  their  ap- 
pearances to  the  saints  down  to  the  giving  of  the  Law. 


ANGELOLOGY  221 

mination  of  the  future  fate  of  men.  Like  the  saints,  they 
will  possess  at  the  Last  Day  some  intercessory  power  with 
God,  but  the  wicked  need  expect  no  favor  from  them.59 
Gerizim  is  "  the  tabernacle  of  God's  angels,"  G0  where  they 
"  taste  and  kiss  "  the  sacrifices,61  and  at  the  Passover  the 
two  Cherubim  and  the  angels  are  present,  hovering  about.62 
The  Hosts  attend  the  priestly  blessing,  and  they  attend  the 
faithful  in  their  prayers.63  At  the  Day  of  Judgment  when 
the  scales  are  set,  they  shall  appear  as  assessors,  and  acquit 
each  one  of  the  righteous,  as  they  ask  concerning  every 
event  of  the  latter's  lives.64  In  all  these  notions  of  the  angels 
we  find  concepts  that  are  rooted  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
which  flowered  richly  in  Judaism  and  Christianity.  But 
on  the  whole  the  Samaritan  conception  has  remained  sim- 
pler and  soberer ;  in  this  the  earlier  Sadduceeism  is  evident. 
There  is  no  trace  of  a  belief  in  guardian  angels. 

(3.)      CREATION. 

According  to  Samaritan  dogma  God  has  revealed  him- 
self in  two  grand  acts,  namely  the  creation  of  the  universe 
and  the  giving  of  the  Law.  Hence  most  of  the  Midrashic 
hymns  begin  with  an  extensive  description  of  the  creation, 
based  upon  the  narrative  in  Gen.  I.65  The  Samaritan  doc- 
trine teaches  strictly  that  God  was  the  creator  of  all  things. 
This  absolute  theology  represents  an  earlier  stage  of  Jewish 
doctrine,  before  oriental  dualism  and  the  Greek  distinction 

59  BS  ii,  191,  v.  12.    Cf  Job,  2,2,,  23. 

60  N.  et  E.  63  (77). 
eiBS  ii,  116,  v.  27. 

62  Ibid.  66,  Lamed.  Cf.  the  Christian  idea  in  connection  with  the 
Eucharist. 

63  Ibid.  117,  v.  27;  no.  Hi. 

64  BS  ii,  94.  The  idea  of  the  Scales  is  taken  from  Islam ;  e.  g. 
Koran,  xxi,  48;  see  Tisdall,  The  Sources  of  the  Quran,  198. 

65  Comparison  may  be  made  with  the  great  ancient  Eucharistic 
Prayer,  which  relates  the  drama  of  human  redemption,  beginning  with 
creation. 


222  THE  SAMARITANS 

between  matter  and  spirit  had  rendered  possible  even  in 
Jewish  monotheism  the  notion  that  anything  could  have  in- 
dependent existence  apart  from  God.  It  is  in  contradiction 
to  such  dubious  theology  that  the  Samaritan  doctrines  hold 
that  God  created  the  Tohu-wa-Bohu,  and  even  that  he  is 
Tohu-wa-Bohu.66 

A  frequent  expression  is  that  God  created  "  from  that 
which  is  not,"  e.  g.  BS  ii,  164,  v.  3 ;  CS  i,  4;  Sam.  Theol. 
19.  (Gesenius  renders  the  phrase,  ex  eo  ubi  nihil,  but  ]xn 
is  the  pronoun  "that.")  For  the  earlier  Jewish  doctrine 
of  absolute  creation  see  2  Mac.  7,  28;  for  the  later  notion 
of  independence  of  things  in  origin  and  condition,  see 
Weber,  op.  cit.  §  43,  and  for  like  philosophy,  Wisdom,  II, 
17. 

Marka  almost  alone,  as  we  have  seen,  enters  into  Gnostic 
speculations;  according  to  him  the  angels  were  emanations 
from  the  Glory.  The  same  theologian  teaches  that  "  the 
Law  came  forth  from  the  fire  "  of  God,  and  that  the  two 
Tables  "  were  separated  from  the  lamp  (face?)  of  his  knowl- 
edge."67 One  might  find  in  this  theologian  almost  a  pan- 
theistic conception ;  he  describes  God  as  one  "  from  whom 
all  is  and  to  whom  all  returns;  "GS  also  a  Hymn  speaks  of 
God  "  making  all  things  go  forth  from  himself."09  But 
we  may  not  push  such  a  criticism  too  far ;  Paul  also  taught 
that  "  of  him  and  through  him  and  unto  him  are  all 
things,"  Rom.  11,  36,  while  the  return  of  all  to  Deity  is  a 
common  doctrine  of  the  Koran.  Samaritan  theology  in 
general  draws  the  sharpest  line  between  God  and  his  crea- 
tures.70 

66  See  above,  p.  215. 

67  Marka,  68b;  cf.  Weber,  op.  cit.  §  42.  Also  Moses'  staff  and  the 
four  Caves  were  created  in  the  Six  Days,  5b,  77b;  cf.  Pirke  Abot,  v,  9, 
and  Taylor,  ad  loc.     Cf.  above,  note  48. 

68  144a. 

69  CS  iii,  16. 

70  There  is  no  notion  of  the  opposition  to  his  purposes  on  the  part 
of  the  angels  as  held  by  some  Rabbinic  literature;  see  Weber,  op.  cit. 
§  43- 


CREATION  223 

The  mystic  means  of  creation  was  the  command,  "  Be," 
which  is  the  object  of  adoring  wonder  to  the  devout  Sa- 
maritan. In  dependence  upon  Jewish  exegesis,  ten  crea- 
tive words  were  spoken,  the  first  of  which  was  found  in 
Gen.  1,  1,  when  Tohu-wa-Bohu  and  the  angels  were  cre- 
ated.71 Marka  also  holds  the  later  Jewish  notion  of  the 
"  renewal "  of  the  worlds,  i.  e.,  of  several  creations 
(Toledot)  before  the  present  world  was  made.72  The  uni- 
verse is  divided,  as  in  the  simpler  Jewish  conception,  into 
two  worlds,  the  upper  and  the  lower,  or,  more  frequently, 
into  the  Things  Concealed  and  the  Things  Manifested. 

As  for  the  heavenly  regions,  references  are  found  to  both 
seven  heavens  and  to  nine.  In  a  passage  giving  the  former 
number,  the  sun  is  assigned  to  the  highest  heaven.73  In  the 
passage  describing  the  nine  heavens,  each  of  the  first  eight 
possesses  its  own  firmament  and  stars,  while  in  the  ninth 
is  "  the  Holy  Abode,  and  Kabbala  its  minister."74  This 
number,  which  approximates  the  ten  heavens  of  Kabbalism, 
appears  also  in  the  Acts  of  St.  Thomas,  where  Paradise  is 
placed  in  the  eighth.75  The  hymns  give  lengthy  descrip- 
tions of  the  heavenly  bodies,  in  long  discourses  compounded 
of  pseudo-science  and  mysticism;  of  course,  astronomical 
observations  played  a  large  part  in  ecclesiastical  thought 
because  of  their  importance  in  regulating  the  ecclesiastical 
calendar,  being  created  indeed  "  for  omens  and  seasons  " 
(Gen.  1,  14). 7G  The  day  of  creation  was  the  first  Nisan.77 
The  knowledge  of  the  elements  of  matter  went  no  further 
than  the  four  principles  of  fire,  wind,  water,  and  earth.78 

71  Pirke  Abot,  v,  1 ;  see  pp.  218,  274. 

72  Marka,  151b;  cf.  Weber,  /.  c. 

™BS  ii,  No.  xviii,  Waw;  DVJ  iv,  552. 
74  BS  ii,  No.  xiv,  Beth. 

75Thilo,  Acta  S.   Thomce,  27;  47   (cited  by  Heidenheim).     For  ten 
heavens,  cf.  also  JE  i,  591. 

76  For  the  calendar,  see  Chap.  XIV,  §  12. 

77  Marka,  30a.    The  Jewish  doctors  disagreed  as  between  Nisan  and 
Tishri. 

78  E.g.  Marka,  43b. 


224  THE  SAMARITANS 

Great  interest  is  displayed  in  Adam,  who  in  his  original 
estate  appears  as  the  ideal  man.  He  was  made  out  of  the 
dust  of  Gerizim,  differing  from  the  beasts  by  walking 
upright.  Marka  tells  how  he  was  formed  of  fire  and  water, 
or  fire  and  dust,  by  God's  own  hand,  being  also  com- 
pounded of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  soul.  A  fine  passage  tells 
how  he  came  to  adore  the  one  creator  of  all  things.  He 
was  placed  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  where  he  remained  a 
year  in  felicity.  After  his  fall,  he  went  off  by  himself  for 
a  hundred  years,  in  which  time  "  he  begat  children  without 
form  or  shape,"  i.  e.,  the  demons  or  Jinn  of  the  corre- 
sponding Jewish  and  Islamic  legends.  But  then  he  re- 
pented and  God  took  him  back  into  favor,  so  that  he  came 
to  rank  as  one  of  the  heroes  of  the  true  religion,  being, 
along  with  Abel,  Enosh,  Enoch  and  Noah,  one  of  the  origi- 
nal worshippers  of  God  on  Gerizim.  There  is,  however, 
an  entire  absence  of  all  Kabbalistic  lore  concerning  Adam 
Kadmon.  Comparatively  little  is  made  of  the  fall  of  Adam 
in  the  hymns,  somewhat  more  in  Marka.  The  Biblical  text 
is  closely  adhered  to,  and  there  is  no  development  of  dia- 
bolology  in  connection  with  the  Serpent. 

See  especially  the  opening  stanzas  of  BS  ii,  Nos.  xxi,  c. 
For  Marka,  see  58b,  68b. —  For  the  antediluvian  patriarchs 
as  true  worshippers,  ibid.  69b,  70b,  180b. —  Almost  no  legen- 
dary lore  appears  concerning  Enoch,  except  a  reference  to 
the  flight  of  his  sons,  which  is  drawn  from  the  legend  of 
the  Wars  of  Enoch,  ibid.  157a,  and  cf.  Heidenheim's 
note. —  For  Enosh,  compare  the  reference  above  to  the 
angel  Anusa,  p.  219.  An  extensive  apocryphal  literature 
ascribed  to  the  patriarchs  seems  to  have  been  known  to 
the  Samaritans, —  c.  g.  a  Book  of  Adam,  or  Book  of  Signs, 
a  Book  of  Wars,  but  there  is  no  reference  to  the  Book  of 
Enoch,  although  Enoch  legends  are  found ;  see  Heiden- 
heim,  DVJ  iv,  213,  350,  189. —  The  absence  of  expansion  of 
doctrine  concerning  the  Fall  represents  the  earlier  Jewish 
position;  cf.  Baldensperger,  Die  messian.apokalyptischen 
Hoffnungcn  d.  Judcnthums,  i,  220. —  Gesenius  quotes  a 
verse  alluding  to  man  as  the  Microcosm,  CS  100. 


BELIEF  IN  MOSES  225 

§    4.       MOSES ;    THE    PATRIARCHS,    PRIESTS,    PROPHETS. 

The  Samaritan  Bible  is  the  Pentateuch;  this  means  to 
Samaritan  belief  that  Moses  was  the  sole  medium  of  God's 
revelation.  Accordingly  the  absoluteness  of  the  Law  and 
the  Lawgiver  is  never  tempered  as  it  is  with  the  Jews,  who 
range  alongside  of  the  Tora,  although  on  an  inferior  plane, 
the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa.  It  was  impossible  for  the 
Samaritan  to  look  forward  with  a  Jeremia  to  a  time  when 
a  new  Law  should  be  written  in  men's  hearts,  or  with  a 
Joel  to  an  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  which  should  discount 
the  revelation  of  the  past.  In  the  Samaritan  sect  Moses 
takes  a  place  parallel  to  that  enjoyed  by  Mohammed  in 
Islam :  "  Moses  is  the  Prophet  of  God,"  and  there  is  none 
other  like  him.  But  the  Samaritan  doctrine  even  surpasses 
Islam  in  reverence  for  its  prophet.  For  while  Muslim  ortho- 
doxy thinks  of  the  Arabian  prophet  with  rational  sober- 
ness, the  Samaritan  advances  the  great  Lawgiver  to  a  posi- 
tion where  he  becomes  an  object  of  faith.  He  is  rather 
like  the  Christ  of  Christianity,  one  whose  origin  is  often 
held  to  be  mysterious,  who  now  lives  to  make  intercession 
for  his  brethren,  who  will  appear  effectually  for  the  saints 
at  the  last  day ;  the  Messiah  himself  will  be  but  an  inferior 
replica  of  that  absolute  Prophet. 

It  would  take  well-nigh  as  long  to  enumerate  the  epi- 
thets accumulated  in  Moses'  honor  as  those  applied  to  Deity. 
As  it  is  true  that  almost  every  hymn  begins  with  the  praise 
of  the  Creator,  so  it  is  likewise  true  that  the  hero  of  the 
second  act  of  the  Midrashic  drama  is  always  and  at  great 
length  Moses.  He  is,  according  to  Biblical  terms,  the  Con- 
fidant of  God,  the  Son  of  his  House,  with  whom  God  talked 
face  to  face ;  he  is  also  the  end,  the  limit  of  all  revelation,  a 
very  ocean  of  divine  utterance.79     In  language  which  has 

79  See  Gesenius's  discussion  of  these  epithets,  Sam.  Theol.  24.     "  The 
son  of  his  house,"  properly  "  slave,"  is  used  honorably,  and  seems  to 
antagonize  such  an  argument  as  appears  in  Heb.  3. 
15 


226  THE  SAMARITANS 

doubtless  been  affected  by  Christianity,  he  is  God's  Evan- 
gelist,80 the  Pure  One,  the  Light  on  earth,81  the  Light  of 
the  world,82  and  all  others  are  liars.83  As  in  Christian 
dogma  he  undid  the  work  of  the  Devil,84  and  the  saint  dies 
in  the  faith  of  Moses.85  His  name  alone  may  be  associated 
with  that  of  God ;  "  We  begin  our  discourse,"  says  an 
Epistle,  "  with  the  name  of  God  and  conclude  with  the 
mention  of  Moses."86  No  prophet  has  ever  arisen  like 
Moses,  or  ever  will  arise.87  He  is  the  absolute  prophet,  for 
all  things  hidden  and  revealed  were  shown  him  on  the  holy 
mount,  so  that  other  prophets  are  superfluous.88  On  his 
account  the  world  was  made,89  prayer  is  offered  through  the 
merits  of  Moses,90  his  prayers  for  the  faithful  will  be 
granted  by  God  in  the  Day  of  Judgment.91 

The  Midrashic  treatment  of  the  history  of  Moses  is  very 
extensive,  particularly  with  regard  to  his  experiences  be- 
ginning at  the  Burning  Bush.  For  his  earlier  life  there  is 
not  as  much  of  amplification  of  the  story  as  appears  in 
the  Jewish  Haggada,  which  glorifies  Moses  as  the  greatest 
and  most  learned  among  the  Egyptians.92     There  is  given 

80  BS  ii,  93,  v.  37. 

81  Marka,  75b,  seq. 

S2BS  ii,  No.  xiv,  Dalet;  Kaph. 

83  Ibid.  No.  xiv,  Lamed. 

84  Ibid.  No.  lxix,  v.  17.  The  same  notion  appears  in  Judaism;  see 
Weber,  op.  cit.  273. 

85  BS  ii,  No.  cxxi,  v.  17. 

86  N.  et  E.  52  (64). 

87  This  despite  Dt.  18,  i8ff,  but  the  doctrine  is  based  on  the  Samari- 
tan reading,  Hebrew  and  Targum,  of  Dt.  34,  8 :  "no  prophet  shall 
arise  " ;  cf.  SC  vii,  1  ;  Marka,  143a. 

88  E.  g.  BS  ii,  No.  xv,  Samek ;  Marka,  143b :  "  He  knows  Bereshit 
and  the  Day  of  Vengeance,"  t.  e.  the  beginning  and  end  of  things. 

89  Marka,  67b;  a  like  notion  exists  in  Judaism. 

90  See  below,  p.  231. 

91  CS  vii,  30. 

92  His  birth  on  the  7th  day  of  the  7th  month  is  asserted  in  corre- 
spondence with  Jewish  legend,  BS  ii,  No.  xv,  He.  His  staff  was  handed 
him  out  of  the  fire  of  God,  Marka,  5b ;  cf.  the  Jewish  legend,  Pirke 
Abot,  v,  9.  For  his  wisdom  (cf.  Acts,  7,  22)  an  ampler  treatment  is 
found  in  the  Legends  of  Moses,  published  by  Leitner  in  DVJ  iv,  184. 


BELIEF  IN  MOSES  227 

a  pretty  infancy  legend  which  speaks  of  the  four  guardian 
angels  in  charge  of  the  child  Moses,  when  he  lay  in  the 
ark.93  But  the  Samaritan  imagination  follows  the  Jewish 
lead  in  letting  itself  out  in  the  glorification  of  the  experi- 
ences of  Moses  upon  the  holy  mount.  Not  satisfied  with 
the  Biblical  accounts  of  the  visions  vouchsafed  to  him, 
there  is  grandiose  enlargement  upon  the  prophet's  fellow- 
ship with  the  angels.  He  entered  into  heaven  itself,  and 
there  sat  on  a  great  white  throne,  while  he  wrote  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  by  the  glory  of  the  angels  was  he  nourished,  of  their 
food  he  ate,  at  their  table  he  sat,  with  their  bread  he  satis- 
fied his  hunger,  in  their  bath  he  bathed,  and  in  their  tent 
he  dwelt.94  In  heaven  he  figures  as  greater  than  the  angels, 
for  these  all  sing  the  praises  of  the  Lawgiver,  as  they  call 
upon  him  to  read  the  Law :  "  O  Priest,  begin  and  read ! 
....  Each  says  to  the  other :  See  and  hear,  O  com- 
rade! What  is  this  but  the  voice  of  the  Glory?  Opened 
to  him  is  heaven's  door.  And  every  constellation  and  its 
stars  listen,  and  the  two  stars  [sun  and  moon]  are  in  vision 
to  Moses,  while  each  says  to  him,  O  Lord  and  Master!  "95 
One  Scriptural  passage  referring  to  God  is  even  applied  to 
Moses:  "He  (Moses)  ascended  into  the  firmament  of 
Levi,  and  appeared,  and  came  forth  from  Sinai,  and  light- 
ened from  Seir,  whose  appearance  was  like  sapphire- 
enamel."96  There  is  constant  reference  to  the  transfigura- 
tion of  Moses'  face,  after  Ex.  34,  and  especially  to  the  horn 
of  light  with  which  he  was  clad,  v.  29;  this  is  the  same 
exegesis  as  appears  in  Aquila  and  the  Vulgate  (cornuta).97 
But  the  most  interesting  development  of  dogma  concern- 
ing Moses  is  found  in  the  doctrine  of  his  pre-existence. 

93  BS  ii,  No.  xiv,  Chet ;  see  above,  p.  219. 
SiMarka,  156b. 

95  BS  ii,  No.  xix,  He. 

96  BS  ii,  205,  v.  15;  cf.  Dt.  33,  2;  Ex.  24,  10. 

97  Horn  of  Light,  BS  ii,  No.  xi,  14;  No.  c,  v.  15;  etc.    It  appeared  in 
Egypt,  ibid.  p.  107,  v.  27. 


228  THE  SAMARITANS 

This  theologumenon,  which  however  is  infrequent,  appears 
in  the  various  phases  common  to  such  conceptions.  At 
times  the  pre-existence  is  only  ideal  or  deterministic;98 
Moses  was  the  end  of  creation,  therefore  he  possessed  an 
ideal  being  before  his  historical  manifestation :  "  We  had 
been  expecting  his  advent  since  the  ages  that  are  past."99 
His  prophethood  had  ideal  pre-existence,  and  in  the  fulness 
of  time  clothed  him  like  a  garment ;  so  in  a  stanza  quoted 
by  Gesenius  :100  "  Prophecy  was  his,  a  crown  from  the 
days  of  creation ;  the  prophethood  of  Moses,  which  was 
worthy  of  him,  clothed  him."  Moreover  the  doctrine  ap- 
proaches that  of  a  real  pre-existence ;  he  is  "  the  man  in 
whom  the  Spirit  of  God  was  established  since  creation ;  the 
eyes  of  God  were  upon  him  with  the  generations  of  the 
days  and  years."101  Further,  the  connection  between  the 
pre-existent  state  and  that  in  the  flesh  was  mediated  by  a 
species  of  metempsychosis,  the  sacred  germ  of  divine  light 
being  transmitted  through  his  forbears  until  it  fully  incar- 
nated itself  in  the  prophet.  "  He  walked  in  the  knowledge 
of  Yhwh  ;  from  the  day  of  the  creation  of  Adam  his 
spirituality  was  in  this  child,  and  his  grandeur  was  in  the 
world.  And  he  set  him  as  a  drop  of  light,  passing  from 
generation  to  generation  [distillation  to  distillation],  and 
then  he  descended  into  Jochebed's  womb,  and  was  placed 
within  her."102  This  doctrine  is  nothing  else  than  a  replica 
of  the  Islamic  legend  of  "  the  Light  of  Mohammed."103 
It  is  in  accordance  with  this  notion  that  Moses  is  called,  in 
Christian  terms,  "  Light  from  Light."104  His  pre-exist- 
ence is  more  definitely  stated  in  the  epithet  used  of  him, 
"  the  Star  of  Creation  whom  God  created  from  the  Six 

98  Cf.  Baldensperger,  op.  cit.  86. 

90  BS  ii,  No.  xv,  Yod ;  this  is  a  reminiscence,  or  parallel,  of  Mi.  5,  I. 

100  Sam.  Theol.  27. 

101  BS  ii,  No.  xcviii,  st.  ii. 

10-  BS  ii,  No.  xv,  He ;  cf.  DVJ  iv,  547. 
103Tisdall,  op.  cit.  246. 
™*DVJ  ii,  99. 


BELIEF  IN  MOSES  229 

Days."  However  despite  this  divine  emanation  of  the  germ 
of  Moses,  he  appears  as  a  created  being,  and  is  frequently 
spoken  of  as  "  the  quintessence  of  creation."105  In  one 
passage,  as  read  by  Heidenheim,106  Moses  is  thus  ad- 
dressed: "Art  thou  not,  O  Moses,  Prince  of  the  (divine) 
Form,  Tabernacle  of  the  Shekina  of  God  ?  "  Here  Moses 
appears  in  the  form  of  the  Prince  of  the  Presence,  and  the 
embodiment  of  God's  glory,  much  like  the  Jewish  Metatron. 
But  this  is  most  exceptional,  while  the  text  is  uncertain ;  in 
general  even  Moses'  pre-existence  originated  in  the  Days  of 
Creation.  A  lengthy  Midrash  describes  the  death  of  Moses, 
but  his  decease  is  a  natural  one,  although  attended  by  glori- 
ous circumstances;  there  is  no  doctrine  of  the  assumption  of 
Moses.107 

Logically  therefore  Samaritanism  has  no  room  for  other 
prophets  than  Moses ;  the  fortunate  canonization  of  the 
Prophets  allowed  Judaism  to  cherish  Moses  as  the  first  of 
a  long  line  of  successors,  but  to  the  Samaritans  he  was  also 
the  end  of  prophecy.  Frequent  reference  is  made  to  proph- 
ets, but  the  thought  seems  to  be  confined  to  the  incident  in 
Num.  11,  where  Eldad,  Medad  and  the  Seventy  Elders 
are  seized  with  the  Spirit  of  God;  these  inspired  men  are 
much  honored  by  the  Samaritans,  who  profess  to  have 
their  tombs.  Also  in  one  passage  the  author  of  a  hymn 
asserts  that  he  himself  is  "  a  scion  of  the  prophets  and  can- 
not lie,"108  but  this  assumption  of  inspiration  is  unique,  at 
least  in  the  literature. 

Aaron  also  takes  a  very  subordinate  position.  He  is  only 
the  moon  to  Moses'  sun,  while  the  latter  is  Priest  as  well 

105  E.  g.  BS  ii,  No.  xv,  Chet,  v.  10.  So,  in  connection  with  the  Bib- 
lical nj?OT,  Gesenins,  CS  68,  understands  po%  a  word  often  used 
of  Moses  and  Israel.  I  would  suggest  that  it  may  mean  "  first  fruits," 
like  the  Talmudic  dcma  ;  cf.  Jer.  2,  3;  la.  i,  18. 

106  DV J  ii,  88;  Zur  Logoslchre  der  Samaritaner,  ibid.  iv.   126. 

107 'See  Mnnk,  Des  Samaritaners  Marqah  Erzahlung  iiber  den   Tod 
Moses',  and  his  remarks,  p.  3. 
108  BS  ii,  No.  xx,  Chet. 


230  THE  SAMARITANS 

as  Prophet.109  Aaron  appears  at  length  in  the  Midrashic 
treatment  of  the  first  chapters  of  Exodus,  but  he  fades 
away  in  the  light  of  Moses'  glory  upon  the  mount.  His 
successors,  Eleazar  and  Phineas,  receive  frequent  notice, 
the  latter  especially,  because  of  the  Biblical  statement  con- 
cerning his  inheritance  in  the  land  of  Samaria,  Jos.  24,  33. 
These  three  priests  are  counted  among  the  Meritorious 
Ones.  Extreme  care  was  taken  with  the  preservation  of 
the  priestly  line,  and  the  chronicles  are  arranged  under  the 
successive  highpriests  whose  line  is  given  from  the  begin- 
ning.110 Their  sacerdotal  rights  were  fully  preserved,  and 
only  when  the  highpriestly  line  failed  in  the  XVIIth  Cen- 
tury, did  others  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  dare  to  assume  their 
functions.  In  general  the  control  of  the  community  has 
lain  in  the  hands  of  the  priesthood,  has  not  been  usurped 
by  lay  doctors.  Despite  this  fact,  Moses  has  triumphed 
over  Aaron,  probably  because  of  the  enforced  spiritualiza- 
tion  of  the  Samaritan  religion  during  its  long  sufferings  of 
persecution  since  the  days  of  John  Hyrcanus.  The  Sa- 
maritan theology  is  not  interested  in  the  treatment  of  the 
sacrificial  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  Judaism  has  been, 
which  expounded  those  ordinances  long  after  they  were 
obsolete.  To  the  contrary,  we  find  in  Samaritanism  a 
greater  stress  laid  upon  the  moral  side  of  the  Law,  which  is 
treated  more  after  the  way  of  Haggada  than  of  Halaka. 
Hence  a  certain  tone  of  spirituality,  however  ethically  genu- 
ine it  may  be,  marks  Samaritan  theology,  so  that  it  appears 
in  a  way  as  one  of  those  numerous  developments  of  Old 
Testament  religion  which  were  forerunners  of  the  spiritual 
worship  of  synagogue  and  of  Christianity.  This  stage  may 
have  been  reached  earlier  than  in  Judaism,  for  the  glory  of 
Gerizim  fell  two  centuries  before  that  of  Jerusalem. 

100  Ibid.  No.  xix,  He. 

110  But  the  frequently  incomplete  and  often  contradictory  genealogies 
allow  us  no  dependence  upon  the  authenticity  of  the  lists  for  earlier 
times,  at  least  before  the  age  of  Baba  Rabba. 


BELIEF  IN  MOSES  231 

It  is  in  consequence  of  this  rigor  of  doctrine  concerning 
Moses  that  the  other  great  hero  of  revelation,  Abraham, 
enjoys  no  such  elevation  as  is  given  him  in  Jewish  Hag- 
gada.  In  this  literature  that  patriarch  becomes  a  close  sec- 
ond to  Moses,  so  that  like  the  latter,  "  for  his  sake  the  world 
was  created,"  while  the  spiritual  superiority  assigned  to 
Abraham  by  Paul  as  the  type  of  true  believers  had  its  close 
anticipations  in  the  Jewish  apocryphal  literature.111  There 
are  traces  of  the  Jewish  legends  of  Nimrod's  enmity  to- 
wards Abraham;112  Marka  enlarges  upon  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac,  which  according  to  Samaritan  tradition  occurred  on 
Gerizim.  We  have  already  in  the  preceding  Section 
touched  upon  the  antediluvian  patriarchs,  whose  histories 
are  also  all  connected  with  Gerizim. 

The  patriarchs  and  other  early  saints  play  a  considerable 
part  in  Samaritanism  through  the  doctrine  of  their  merits. 
They  are  the  Guiltless  Ones,  or  with  reference  to  the  no- 
tion of  zckut,  the  Meritorious  Ones.113  These  are  pri- 
marily Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.114  This  number  is  also 
enlarged  so  as  to  obtain  the  mystical  seven,  but  the  list 
varies.  Sometimes  it  includes  with  those  three  Joseph, 
Aaron,  Eleazar  and  Phineas,  to  whom  Moses  may  also  be 
added.115  This  doctrine  of  the  merits  of  the  Fathers  takes 
the  same  place  in  Samaritan  doctrines  as  the  corresponding 
teachings  in  Judaism,  and  the  later  extravagant  develop- 
ment of  the  merits  of  the  saints  in  Christianity.  Thus  a 
hymn  for  Kippur  reads:116     "Let  us  stand  in  prayer  be- 

111  Bcreshit  R.  c.  2;  cf.  cc.  48,  12.  See  in  general,  Weber,  op.  cit. 
§  56;  Bonsset,  op.  cit.  178. 

112  E.g.  BS  ii,  191,  v.  17;  Marka,  47b.  According  to  BS  ii,  No.  xcviii, 
st.  i,  "  Abraham's  merits  gained  for  him  Paradise."  The  Legends  of 
Moses,  cited  above,  contains  a  mass  of  patriarchal  traditions. 

113  See  Rappoport,  Liturgie  samaritaine,  20. 

114  E.g.  BS  ii,  No.  ii :  "  our  Fathers." 

115  BS  ii,  No.  xcviii,  st.  vi,  p.  190,  middle.  Judaism  likewise  singled 
out  three  or  seven  saints, —  the  three  patriarchs,  with  Moses,  Aaron 
Miriam,   Benjamin;   see  Hamburger,  REJud    i,  38. 

116  BS  ii,  No.  xvi,  p.  52,  st.  16.     Cf.  N.  ct  E.  181.     Here  and  generally 


232  THE  SAMARITANS 

fore  Yhwh  the  Giver,  and  pray  and  say :  O  Lord 
Yhwh,  turn  from  thy  hot  anger,  and  be  appeased  for  the 
sake  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  for  the  merit 
of  thy  servant  Moses."  This  notion  is  also  connected  with 
the  Scriptural  passages  referring  to  Abraham's  and  Moses' 
intercessory  powers  with  God ;  the  prayers  they  offered  still 
have  virtue  for  Israel.  They  are  also  present  intercessors; 
thus  it  is  prayed  that  the  son  of  Terah  "  may  intercede  for 
us,"117  and  Moses'  prayers  will  be  efficacious  at  the  Day  of 
Judgment.118 

There  may  also  be  noticed  here  the  doctrine  of  the  Seven 
Covenants,  frequently  referred  to  in  the  Epistles.  These 
are  respectively :  the  covenant  with  Noah  in  the  bow ;  with 
Abraham  in  circumcision ;  with  Moses  in  the  Sabbath ;  the 
Tables ;  the  Passover ;  the  Covenant  of  Salt,  based  on  Num. 
1 8,  19;  and  the  Covenant  of  Priesthood  with  Phineas,  Num. 

25,   I2f.119 

§    5.       THE    LAW. 

We  have  already  observed  the  absolute  uniqueness  which 
Samaritanism  ascribes  to  the  Tora.  On  the  whole  the  doc- 
trine in  details  goes  pai'i  passu  with  that  of  Judaism. 

In  general  it  is  taught  that  the  Law  came  forth  from 
the  very  essence  of  God,  was  detached  from  the  fire  of 
deity.  Here,  if  anywhere,  we  come  upon  a  clear  notion  of 
emanation ;  no  origin  is  too  divine  for  the  Law.  "  The 
Tables  had  lain  hidden  in  the  midst  of  the  fire  " ;  "  they 
shone  like  gleaming  lightning  " ;  "  they  were  inscribed  with 
a  finger  of  devouring  fire."120  "  They  are  a  fragment  of 
the    hidden    world,    increasing    wisdom    for    all    genera- 

'amal,  opus,  equals  the  Jewish  zekut,  "  merit."  Also  segila  is  used  of 
the  "  treasury  "  of  merits,  e.g.  BS  ii,  No.  xv,  Waw.  For  the  Jewish 
doctrine,  see  Weber,  op.  cit.  §  63. 

117  55"  ii,  p.  98,  top. 

"8  CS  vii,  30. 

119  N.  ct  E.  119;  cf.  p.  74.    On  p.  159  only  six  are  named. 

120  Sam.  Thcol.  28. 


THE  LAW  233 

tions;"121  "the  Law  is  a  spark  from  God's  vesture."122 
And  thus  Marka:123  "The  Law  came  out  of  the  fire;" 
"  the  Tables  were  sundered  from  the  divine  essence."  The 
Tables  are  not  however  from  eternity,  for  "  they  contain 
the  will  of  God  which  he  decreed  in  those  Six  Days."124 
That  is,  they  were  separated  from  the  divine  glory  in  the 
creative  week,  and  remained  hidden  in  the  divine  fire  until 
the  day  of  revelation.  The  same  was  widespread  Jewish 
doctrine,  according"  to  which  the  Tables  were  of  divinely 
mystical  substance,  fiery  and  translucent.125  Only  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  there  is  none  of  the  indefinitely  long  and 
so  practically  eternal  pre-existence  claimed  for  the  Law 
which  is  found  in  some  Jewish  teaching;  nor  is  there  any 
of  the  personification  of  the  Law  which  early  developed  in 
connection  with  the  Jewish  ideas  of  Wisdom  and  the 
Word.126 

Samaritanism  does  not  halt  at  anthropomorphism  in  its 
description  of  the  giving  of  the  Tables,  and  here  it  has  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  God  himself  wrote  the  Tables 
and  gave  them  to  Moses  with  his  own  hand;  127  in  this  may 
be  contained  a  protest  against  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the 
mediation  of  the  Law  by  the  hands  of  angels. 12S  The 
scene  of  the  divine  legislation  is  depicted  with  all  the 
solemnities  and  terrors  which  appear  in  the  Jewish  Mid- 
rashim.  All  things  seen  and  unseen  were  present;  all 
angels  in  their  ranks,  the  stars  and  the  constellations,  even 

121  cs  iv,  17. 

122  CS  Hi,  4. 

123  68b. 

124  CS  iv,  18. 

125  E.g.  Pseudo-Jonathan  and  Tar  gum  Jer.  to  Ex.  19,   i6ff;  20,  2ff; 
Rashi  to  Dt.  33,  3.     Cf.  Gesenius,  Sam.  Theol.  28;  CS  80. 

126  See  Weber,  op.  cit.  §  4. 

127  E.  g.  BS  ii,  112,  v.  23,  at  top;  p.  138,  v.  1;  No.  xxxii,  v.  4:  "thy 
autograph." 

128  See  above,  p.  220. 


234  THE  SAMARITANS 

the  dead  with  the  living;  the  whole  universe  trembled  be- 
fore this  divine  revelation. 

In  another  place  is  given  a  description  of  the  sanctity  the 
Samaritans  ascribe  to  the  rolls  of  Scripture,  and  especially 
to  the  archetypal  copy  of  Abishua;129  no  wonder  then  that 
they  prostrate  themselves  at  its  exhibition  and  sing  a 
Gloria.130  By  the  Samaritans  the  Law  has  been  found  to 
be  "the  Book  of  Life,"  or  even  "Life"  itself,131  even  as 
the  Old  Testament  has  been  to  the  Jews  and  both  Testa- 
ments to  Christendom.132 

§   6.      GERIZIM. 

The  fourth  article  of  faith  of  the  Samaritans,  the  one 
which  differentiated  them  toto  ccelo  from  the  Jews,  is  based 
upon  what  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  the  root  falsehood 
of  the  Samaritan  religion.  It  is  true  that  for  neither  sect 
did  the  common  authority  of  the  Pentateuch  offer  any  de- 
termination of  God's  sanctuary  in  the  Promised  Land. 
The  Samaritans  had  the  advantage  in  the  fact  that  the  early 
centres  of  Israel's  religion  were  in  the  Highlands  of  Eph- 
raim,  at  Bethel  or  Shilo,  while  Dt.  27  provided  for  a  sol- 
emn covenant  to  be  enacted  on  the  two  mountains  of 
Shechem.  But  Shechem  seems  to  have  early  lost  its  pres- 
tige, and  Bethel  became  the  chief  sanctuary  of  the  Northern 
Kingdom.  Yet  in  the  matter  of  true  ritual  succession  the 
South  had  the  advantage  in  at  last  securing  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  and  in  consecrating  therewith  the  new  high-place 
at  Jerusalem.  And,  if  our  understanding  of  the  history  be 
correct,  after  the  Exile  the   remnant  of  Northern  Israel 

129  See  Chap.  XIV,  §  6. 

130  BS  ii,  p.  xxxvi,  seq;  see  above,  p.  41. 

131  BS  ii,  No.  xxx ;  No.  xxxvi,  v.  7. 

132  According  to  Lib.  Jos.  xxiii,  the  reading  of  the  Law  possesses  a 
magical  influence  against  evil  spirits,  the  evil-eye,  incantations,  etc. 
But  in  general  Samaritanism  is  remarkably  free  from  such  supersti- 
tious notions. 


GERIZIM  235 

largely  gave  in  its  adherence  to  the  sanctity  of  Zion.  It 
was  the  northern  schism  after  the  Exile  which  again  turned 
the  mind  of  the  Samaritans  to  the  choice  of  a  local  sanctu- 
ary, and  they  chose  Gerizim  for  reasons  which  have  already 
been  specified  in  the  IVth  Chapter.  But  this  was  in  the 
nature  of  an  afterthought;  the  succession  of  sanctity  had 
for  centuries  been  broken.  And  the  Samaritans  in  their 
choice  of  Gerizim  confessed  the  weakness  of  their  position 
by  taking  recourse  to  the  natural  weapon  of  the  weaker 
party,  namely  the  lie.  They  felt  themselves  compelled  to 
falsify  the  Biblical  text.  This  theological  emendation  was 
simply  made  by  changing  the  "  Ebal  "  of  Dt.  27,  4,  to 
"  Gerizim  " ;  it  was  then  on  Gerizim  that  the  first  altar  of 
God  for  the  Twelve  Tribes  was  built.133 

The  Samaritans  having  thus  invented  Mosaic  authority 
for  the  sanctity  of  Gerizim,  proceeded  to  dignify  the  moun- 
tain with  every  epithet  of  honor,  and  to  identify  it  with 
every  possible  transaction  of  sacred  history.  For  them 
Gerizim  is  the  Blessed  Mount,  the  Eternal  Hill.134     It  is 

133  The  great  critic  Kennicott  was  among  the  defenders  of  the 
Samaritan  reading,  in  his  Second  Dissertation.  But  Verschuir,  Dis- 
sertationes  philol-e.xegcticce,  No.  iii  (1773),  demonstrated  at  length  the 
falsity  of  the  Samaritan  position.  The  points  of  the  argument  would 
include:  (1)  the  unanimous  witness  of  the  versions  to  the  Massoretic 
text;  (2)  the  point  of  the  great  ceremony  is  the  curse,  the  altar  there- 
fore should  be  connected  with  the  place  of  cursing;  (3)  the  Jews 
would  have  no  reason  to  alter  the  text,  as  Ebal  and  Gerizim  are  indif- 
ferent to  them,  and  they  allowed  that  the  latter  was  the  mount  of 
blessing.  As  against  Lightfoot,  who  argues  that  the  absence  of  Tal- 
mudic  reference  to  this  corruption  proves  the  late  origin  of  the  change, 
Gesenius  rightly  holds  that  the  details  of  textual  comparison  were  of 
little  concern  to  the  Jews,  Pent.  Sam.  61.  The  modern  Samaritans 
deny  the  report  that  they  offer  sacrifices  on  Ebal,  N.  et  E.  122.  In 
this  connection  the  Samaritans  also  make  the  following  changes  in  the 
text.  At  the  end  of  Dt.  11,  30,  "before  Shechem "  is  added;  this 
against  an  early  view  which  attempted  to  find  a  Gerizim  and  Ebal  near 
the  Jordanic  Gilgal,  although  the  Jewish  disputant  in  Sota,  33b  ad- 
mitted that  by  "  the  oaks  of  More  "  Shechem  was  meant.  And  then 
to  make  self-assurance  doubly  sure,  the  Samaritan  adds  after  Ex.  20, 
17,  and  Dt.  5,  21,  a  long  pericope,  consisting  substantially  of  Dt.  27, 
2-8,  and  11,  30. 

13iTur  berik;  c.  g.  Lib.  Jos.  xxi, —  with  reference  to  Dt.  27,  12.    The 


236  THE  SAMARITANS 

"the  House  of  God  (Beth-el),  the  Mount  of  Inheritance 
and  of  the  Abode  (Shekina),  the  great  and  chosen 
Place;"135  "the  House  of  the  powerful  God,  the  Taber- 
nacle of  his  angels,  the  Place  of  the  presence  of  his 
majesty,  the  Place  destined  for  sacrifices."136  Like  Jeru- 
salem for  the  ancient  Jew  and  Mecca  for  the  Muslim, 
Gerizim  is  the  Kibla  of  the  Samaritan,  the  place  toward 
which  he  prays.137 

The  standing  name  of  the  holy  mount  is  "  Gerizim- 
Bethel-Luza."  The  first  epithet  is  used  in  the  sense  that 
Gerizim  is  the  veritable  Bethel  of  patriarchal  history. 
Hence  we  find  no  reference  to  the  historical  Bethel.  Ac- 
cording to  Samaritan  tradition,  upon  the  schism  under  Eli 
the  renegades  set  up  their  worship  at  Shilo,138  and  the  calf- 
cult  of  Jeroboam,  also  an  apostate  from  the  true  Israel,  was 
located  at  Samaria.139  While  the  geography  of  this  identi- 
fication is  sadly  in  error,  nevertheless  the  use  of  beth-el  is 
the  retention  of  a  primitive  term  for  a  sanctuary,  used  by 
the  Jews  also  of  Jerusalem.  A  corroboration  for  this  iden- 
tification was  the  existence  of  a  town  upon  Gerizim  named 
Luza,  which  accounts  for  the  second  epithet  above,  and  was 
naturally  identified  with  the  Luz-Bethel  of  Gen.  28,  19.140 

Eternal  Hill,  e.  g.  N.  et  E.  165  (177);  BS  ii,  66,  top;  based  on  the 
Samaritan  reading  of  the  singular  in  Dt.  33,  15.  But  Mills,  who  gives 
a  list  of  thirteen  epithets  for  Gerizim  taken  down  from  the  highpriest 
with  their  interpretations  (Nablus,  268),  gives  as  the  present  explana- 
tion of  the  term,  "mountain  of  the  world"  (liar  'olam).  This  is  an 
interesting  survival  of  a  very  ancient  idea,  appearing  in  connection  with 
the  Babylonian  temples  and  also  in  Biblical  ideas  concerning  Jerusa- 
lem, e.  g.  Is.  2,  iff. 

135  N.  et  E.  212  (217)  ;  cf.  BS  ii,  No.  xxiv. 

™N.  et  E.  63  (77)- 

137  Ibid.  164  (176);  see  Chap.  III. 

138  Lib.  los.  xliii. 

139  Abu' l  Fath,  53. 

140  Where  the  Samaritan  Hebrew  reads  "  Luza."  This  place  Luza  is 
testified  to  by  Jerome  in  his  Onomasticon  (Migne,  xiii,  954).  For  the 
ruins  of  Luza,  see  Guerin,  Samarie,  i,  433 ;  Conder,  Tent  Work  in 
Palestine.  63,  identifying  the  place  with  the  present  spot  of  sacrifice. 
But  in  PEFQS  1876,  p.  191,  Conder  is  by  no  means  certain  as  to  the 


GERIZIM  237 

But  the  connection  of  the  Patriarchs  with  Gerizim  was 
not  confined  to  the  history  of  Jacob.  As  the  Jews  identi- 
fied the  Mount  Moria  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  with  Zion,  so 
the  Samaritan  tradition  connected  it  with  Gerizim  through 
the  etymological  correspondence  of  Moria  with  More  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Shechem ;  this  identification  is  then  cor- 
roborated by  making  Melchizedek  king  of  the  Salem  which 
is  to  the  east  of  Shechem.  The  Samaritans  still  point  out 
the  place  where  Isaac  was  offered.141 

At  the  end  of  the  3d  Section  we  referred  to  the  tradi- 
tions connecting  the  worship  of  the  antediluvian  Patri- 
archs with  Gerizim.  But  further,  it  was  the  sanctuary  of 
God  from  the  beginning;  it  is  the  holy  place  which  God 
"  chose  "  at  the  very  first.142  Hence  it  is  given  the  name 
Har  Qadiin,  the  First  Mount,  by  which  Marka  understands 
its  appearance,  along  with  the  Garden  of  Eden,  before  the 
rest  of  the  dry  ground,  although  in  another  place  it  implies 
for  him  Gerizim's  pre-existence  before  the  rest  of  crea- 
tion.143 Here  Adam  was  made,  "created  out  of  the  dust 
of  Mount  Safra."144  The  latter  name  for  Gerizim  is  very 
common,145  and  Gesenius  is  right  in  connecting  the  tradi- 

identification.     Dean   Stanley   held   that  this   locality   was   the   Luz   of 
Ju.  1,  26. 

141  This  identification  for  Moria  appears  in  the  Samaritan  Hebrew 
of  Gen.  22,  2,  where  "ID  stands  for  nncn  The  place  Salem,  to 
the  east  of  Shechem,  is  also  the  Samaritan  interpretation  of  D^tt>  in 
Gen.  33,  18  (cf.  Septuagint,  Syriac,  Vulgate),  and  this  was  further 
identified  with  Melchizedek's  city,  so  that  yet  another  notable  episode 
of  Abraham's  life  was  located  in  the  neighborhood  of  Gerizim ;  see 
VJD  iv,  187.  Stanley  (Sinai  and  Palestine,  note  to  chap,  vi.)  accepted 
the  Samaritan  identification  of  Moria,  but  he  has  not  been  generally 
followed  by  other  scholars.  However,  there  has  been  recently  a  re- 
vival of  Stanley's  position ;  see  Wellhausen,  Comp.  d.  Hex.3,  19 ; 
v.  Gall,  Altisr.  Kultusstatten,  in;  E.  Meyer,  Die  Israeliten,  260. 

142  BS  ii,  No.  xcix,  st.  vi ;  Marka,  72b.  The  Sam.-Hebrew  reads  the 
perfect  bachar,  "  chose,"  for  the  imperfect  in  Dt.  12,  14. 

143  Marka,  68a;  71b.  He  also  associates  it  with  miqqedem,  "on  the 
east,"  Gen.  12,  8,  where  Abraham  built  an  altar. 

144  CS  xii,  18. 

145  E.g.  BS  ii,  No.  xxiii,  Chet :  "  the  congregation  of  S." 


238  THE  SAMARITANS 

tion  with  the  similar  one  of  Islam  concerning  Mount 
Qafra.  in  the  neighborhood  of  Mecca.  But  here  again  their 
peculiar  geographical  exegesis  comes  to  the  help  of  the  Sa- 
maritans. The  Har  Qaclim  (or  Oedem)  is  "  the  mount  of 
the  east,"  Har  Haqqedem,  which  is  named  Sephar  in  Gen. 
x,  30.14C  Thus  the  Muslim  legend  is  adapted  to  Samari- 
tan geography  —  unless  we  may  hold  that  the  reverse  pro- 
cess has  actually  taken  place. 

It  also  appears  that  the  Samaritans  made  Gerizim,  as  the 
Mount  of  the  World,  the  site  of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  an 
identification  which  has  its  roots  in  the  antique  idea  set 
forth  in  Eze.  28,  I3ff,  where  the  Mount  of  God  and  Eden 
are  identical.  There  is  a  legend  in  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
xxi,  s.  fin.,  of  a  river  descending  out  of  Gerizim  in  the  Age 
of  Grace,  while  Marka  speaks  of  "  the  concealed  river  Eu- 
phrates."147 This  notion  of  a  mystical  river  connected 
with  the  sanctuary  mount  has  also  its  antique  parallel  in 
the  Old  Testament,  in  regard  to  Jerusalem,  Eze.  47 ;  Zcch. 
14;  Ps.  46.  The  river  is  "concealed"  against  the  future, 
when  it  and  the  Garden  of  Eden  will  be  restored  to  view. 
Here  again  local  geography  comes  to  the  aid  of  exegesis. 
The  Wady  Fara  descends  east  from  Gerizim,  and  this  name 
in  its  original  form  was  probably  identical  with  the  Bib- 
lical word  for  Euphrates,  Perat.148  Also,  as  is  instanced 
by  a  Jewish  Midrashic  passage,  the  Samaritans  held  that 
Gerizim  was  not  overflowed  by  the  waters  of  the  flood.149 
Again  in  the  latter  days  it  is  to  be  the  site  of  Paradise; 
when  all  other  things  shall  have  been  destroyed,  "  the 
Eternal  Hill  shall  be  left  in  the  midst  of  the  Garden."150 
But  even  in  the  present  unhappy  age  the  Presence  of  God 

140  Cf.  Mills,  op.  cit.  270. 

147  Marka,  76a. 

148  Cf.  the  probable  cor. fusion  of  a  local  stream  Perat  with  the  Eu- 
phrates in  the  exegesis  of  Jer.  13  ;  see  Giesebrecht,  ad  loc. 

149  Bcreshit  R.  c.  xxxii. 

150  BS  ii,  93,  v.  21. 


GERIZIM  239 

and  the  angels  still  dwell  upon  Gerizim,  although  unseen. 
The  holy  Tabernacle  has  disappeared,  but  it  is  only  "  ex- 
alted,"151 existing  in  some  mystical  fashion  above  the 
mount;  but  it  will  return  with  the  Ark  and  all  the  sacred 
paraphernalia  of  worship  to  perfect  the  ritual  of  the  saints 
in  the  Age  of  Grace.152  A  somewhat  different  form  of  the 
legend,  and  one  which  has  its  Jewish  counterpart,  is  that 
the  Ark  is  preserved  in  a  cave  on  Mount  Gerizim  ;153  this 
doctrine  can  be  traced  back  to  the  1st  Century,  for  Jo- 
sephus  records  the  enthusiast  who  led  the  Samaritans  up 
the  mountain,  promising  to  reveal  to  them  the  holy  ves- 
sels.154 

§    7.       ESCHATOLOGY.155 

It  has  been  observed  above  in  connection  with  the  Sa- 
maritan Creed  that  the  eschatological  tenets  of  the  faith 
are  of  later  and  secondary  origin.  The  elder  Samaritans 
doubtless  held  to  the  primitive  notion,  exhibited  almost 
throughout  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  that  the  dead  went  to 
Sheol,  herein  agreeing  with  Sadducsean  doctrine  as  against 
Pharisaism.  However  the  dogma  of  the  resurrection  ap- 
pears already  in  full  bloom  in  Marka  in  the  IVth  Century. 
Also  in  the  development  of  Messianism  the  Samaritans 
lagged  behind  and  largely  imitated  Judaism,  nor  did  their 

151  N.  et  E.  114  (126)  :  "we  weep  over  the  tabernacle  and  its  exalta- 
tion." 

152  £  g  £5"  ij;  No.  xxiii  Pe  seqq. 

153  Marka,  77b.  For  the  Jewish  legend,  see  2  Mac.  2.  According  to 
Marka  there  were  four  graves  or  caves  preserved  since  the  third  day 
of  creation:  those  of  Machpela,  Gerizim,  Hor  and  Nebo.  (Cf.  Pirke 
Abot,  v,  9.)  The  sacred  cave  on  Gerizim  has  been  referred  to  above, 
p.  36. 

1.54  AJ  xviii,  4,  1-2.  The  tombs  of  many  of  the  patriarchal  worthies 
are  to  be  found,  according  to  Samaritan  tradition,  on  or  near  Gerizim. 

155  In  addition  to  the  bibliography  given  at  the  beginning  of  the  Chap- 
ter, see  Friedrich,  De  Christologia  Samaritanorum,  1821 ;  Cowley,  The~_ 
Samaritan  Doctrine  of  the  Messiah,  in  Expositor,  1895,  p.  161.  The 
present  Section  was  practically  completed  before  the  author  saw  the  last- 
named  article,  which  has,  however,  given  him  some  important  sug- 
gestions. 


240  THE  SAMARITANS 

Messianic  ideas  ever  play  the  same  capital  part  as  in  the 
other  faith.  The  references  to  this  doctrine  are  compara- 
tively few  and  generally  vague,  and  it  comes  ultimately 
to  be  more  a  pious  belief  than  a  positive  dogma.  In  gen- 
eral, Samaritan  eschatology  represents  the  primitive  stages 
of  Jewish  doctrine. 

The  first  development  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Latter 
Things  sprang  out  of  the  ancient  Israelitish  theologumenon 
of  the  Day  of  Yahwe,  which  appears  as  early  as  Amos. 
The  like  and  even  sadder  experiences  of  the  Samaritan 
sect  required  that  they  should  develop,  after  the  pattern 
of  Judaism,  the  doctrine  of  an  ultimate  theodicy,  when 
at  last  the  sufferings  of  the  church  should  be  compen- 
sated. Hence  the  Samaritans  look  forward  with  eager 
hopes  to  what  they  generally  term  the  Day  of  Vengeance, 
or  the  Day  of  Vengeance  and  Recompense,  D^T  Dpi  DV-. 
It  is  also  called  the  Last  Day,  and  the  Great  Day.150 
This  doctrine  was  anterior  to  that  of  the  resurrection ;  the 
community  was  to  be  vindicated,  not  the  individual,  ac- 
cording to  earlier  thought.  As  for  the  home  of  the  future 
justified  and  glorious  community,  this  is  universally  found 
on  Gerizim,  a  belief  parallel  to  the  early  Jewish  notions, 
which  made  Jerusalem  the  centre  of  all  eschatological  ex- 
pectations. When  subsequently  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection was  added  to  this  more  ancient  dogma,  the  notion 
of  the  earthly  Paradise  does  not  seem  to  have  been  much 
disturbed.  The  resurrection  would  restore  the  blessed 
dead  to  transfigured  Gerizim;  hence  it  is  the  pious  belief 
that  burial  on  Gerizim  is  especially  efficacious  for  an  easy 
transit  into  the  new  condition.  The  Samaritans  appear  not 
to  have  advanced  as  a  body  to  notions  of  a  Paradise  in  some 
mystical  portion  of  the  earth  or  in  a  celestial  region,  as 
in  the  apocalyptic  developments  of  Jewish  thought.     Here 

issThe  Last  Day,  BS  ii,  65,  Kaph,  v.  3;  the  Great  Day,  BS  ii,  92, 
v.  30.    Cf.  Joel,  2,  31 ;  Mai.  4,  5- 


ESCHATOLOGY  241 

again  we  find  them  retaining  the  position  held  by  earlier 
Judaism. 

The  Day  of  Vengeance  and  Recompense  is  the  grand 
objective  of  the  Samaritan  philosophy  of  history  which  lies 
at  the  base  of  all  the  chronicles.  According  to  this  inter- 
pretation of  human  events,  the  world's  whole  history  is 
divided  into  four  ages.  Preceding  these  seons  there  was 
the  age  of  Adam's  perfection,  when  all  things  were  good 
as  God  had  made  them.  But  with  Adam's  fall  began  the 
rotation  of  certain  cycles  of  God's  providence.  First  there 
came  the  days  of  Panuta,  an  Age  of  Disfavor,  which  lasted 
till  the  revelation  on  Mount  Sinai.  With  Moses  the 
world  was  regenerated,  so  far  at  least  as  the  holy  people 
were  concerned,  and  the  Age  of  Grace,  the  days  of  Ridh- 
wan,  was  ushered  in.  This  continued  for  260  years,  dur- 
ing which  time  the  theocracy  was  duly  and  rightly  gov- 
erned by  God's  vice-gerents,  the  kings  and  priests,  the  two 
classes  working  harmoniously  together.  But  this  happy 
age  was  terminated  by  the  evil  priest  Eli,  Samson  being 
the  last  king  of  the  old  order.  Then  originated  the  schism 
of  the  Jews,  while  the  working  of  the  evil  continued  in 
the  further  schism  of  Jeroboam,  whom  with  his  cult  the 
Samaritans  disown.  God's  presence  was  no  longer  visible 
on  Gerizim,  the  holy  vessels  were  hidden  away,  the  ene- 
mies of  Israel  interrupted  the  sacred  cult,  and  the  calami- 
ties began  under  which  the  church  has  ever  since  suffered. 
This  is  the  second  Age  of  Disfavor,  the  present  Panuta, 
in  which  God  has  turned  azvay  his  face  from  his  people. 
However  communion  with  God  is  still  maintained  through 
the  succession  of  the  true  highpriesthood  and  the  sacri- 
fices on  Gerizim,  and  the  people's  hope  looks  forward  to 
the  early  return  of  God's  favor.  Then  at  last  the  second 
and  great  Ridhwan  is  to  come,  and  in  it  God's  Israel 
shall  enjoy  perpetual  peace  and  felicity,  while  their  ene- 
mies are  suppressed.     This  happy  age  will  be  introduced 

10 


242  THE  SAMARITANS 

by  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  upon  the  6oooth  year  from 
creation,  beginning-  the  last  day  of  the  divine  week  of 
human  history.  The  fortunes  to  be  expected  in  that  last 
millennium  will  be  treated  below  in  connection  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Messiah.  But  we  may  observe  here  that 
the  dates  which  appear  in  the  Samaritan  chronicles  pos- 
sess more  than  mundane  significance;  they  are  the  figures 
of  the  divine  chronology,  and  the  faithful  can  calculate 
thereby  the  days  to  the  end.  But  the  irony  of  millennial 
belief  has  befallen  the  Samaritans  even  as  it  has  pursued 
every  eschatological  speculation  since  the  Book  of  Daniel. 
In  the  XVIth  Century  the  Samaritans  confessed  in  the 
1st  Epistle  to  Scaliger  that  God  alone  knows  the  day  of 
Messiah.  In  the  year  1808  the  Samaritan  correspondents 
of  the  Europeans  dated  their  letter  with  the  year  of  cre- 
ation 6246.  With  the  Samaritans  then  as  with  Jew  and 
Christian,  millenarian  doctrine  has  had  its  bloom ;  only  the 
words  of  the  old  faith  are  kept,  ghosts  of  what  once  was 
really  believed  in. 

For  the  above  philosophy  of  history,  see  Lib.  Jos.  and 
Abu'l  Fath.  For  the  Ages  and  their  calculation,  see  es- 
pecially Vilmar,  Abu'l  Fathi  annates,  p.  xxx,  and  the  chro- 
nological table,  p.  lxxxiv.  The  Messiah's  reign  is  to  last 
no  years  from  A.  M.  6000,  so  that  the  date  of  the  second 
Panuta,  which  is  3050,  is  midway  between  creation  and  the 
end  of  Messiah's  kingdom.  The  epochs  of  Alexander's 
death  and  of  the  Hegira  also  have  cardinal  places  in  this 
scheme,  the  former  being  placed  1050  years  after  the  date 
of  Panuta,  the  latter  just  2000  years  from  the  same  period. 
The  three  days  of  Panuta  are  those,  respectively,  of  schism 
and  strife,  of  the  Greek  dominion,  and  of  Islam  (op.  cit. 
p.  Hi). — "The  Age  of  Grace":  the  day  of  Pimm,  refresh- 
ment, or  I15H,  favor;  in  Arabic:  the  days  of  ridJia,  or 
ridhwan,  favor. — "  The  Age  of  Disfavor  " :  panuta,  from 
the  Hebrew  root  pana,  means  the  turning  away  of  God's 
face,  inclusive  probably  of  the  thought  of  Israel's  defection. 
See  Juynboll,  Lib.  Jos.  126;  Vilmar,  /.  c;  Kohn,  Zur 
Sprache,  4/ff;  Cowley,  op.  cit.  169.  Also  "the  Days  of 
Wrath  and  Error." —  For  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  6000  years 
before  Messiah's  advent,  see  Bousset,  op.  cit.  234 ;  Schiirer, 
GJV  ii,  530.  The  Samaritan  division  of  the  period  is  dif- 
ferent from  the  Jewish,  which  follows  the  fortunes  of  the 


ESCHATOLOGY  243 

temple. —  Up  to  a  late  period  the  millennial  hope  appears 
to  have  assigned  exact  dates  for  the  Messianic  advent. 
According  to  Petermann,  Reiscn,  i,  283,  the  year  1858  had 
been  fixed  upon. 

While  doubtless  the  Samaritan  notion  of  the  Messiah 
is  a  borrowed  accretion  of  faith,  nevertheless  we  can  trace 
it  back  to  a  fairly  early  period.  For  the  lid  Century  A.  C. 
Justin  Martyr  bears  witness  to  it.157  For  the  1st  Century 
we  have  as  probable  testimony  the  anecdote  of  the  enthu- 
siast who  asserted  the  power  to  discover  the  hidden  ves- 
sels, perhaps  a  Messianic  claimant  himself;  also  possibly 
the  story  of  Simon  Magus  {Acts  8),  who  claimed  to  be 
"  the  Great  Power  of  God,"  although  this  assumption  out- 
bids all  we  know  of  Samaritan  Messianism.  But  most 
instructive  for  this  century  is  the  remark  of  the  Samaritan 
woman  to  Jesus  :  "  I  know  that  Messiah  is  coming ;  when 
he  comes  he  will  tell  us  all  things"  (Jn.  4,  25).  This 
whole  narrative  is,  to  the  present  writer's  mind,  a  witness 
to  the  acquaintance  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  Palestinian 
conditions.  The  Samaritan  notion,  as  it  appears  in  the 
literature,  makes  of  the  Messiah  only  a  second  Moses,  one 
whose  function  it  will  be  to  reveal  what  is  hidden;  he  is 
primarily  the  prophet  that  shall  come  like  Moses  {Dt.  18),, 
and  so  we  can  understand  the  comparatively  ready  ac- 
ceptance of  Jesus  by  the  woman's  coreligionists,  because 
he  appeared  to  them  as  a  "  prophet"  (v.  19). 158 

With  this  Samaritan  Messiah  it  is  natural  to  attempt  to 
find  some  connection  in  the  enigmatic  Messiah-ben-Joseph, 
or  M.-ben-Ephraim,  who  appears  in  later  Jewish  literature. 
Flis  function  was  to  be  that  of  precursor  of  the  Messiah- 
ben-David,  and  his  particular  duty  to  collect  and  lead  home 
the  scattered  Ten  Tribes.  He  will  captain  the  hosts  of 
Israel  against  the  forces  of  Gog  and  Magog  in  their  on- 
slaught upon  the  Holy  Land,  and  will  fall  in  battle  against 

i"  /.  Apol.  S3- 

158  See  also  for  the  same  position,  Cowley,  op.  cit.  171. 


244  THE  SAMARITANS 

them:  then  will  appear  the  victorious  Messiah  of  David's 
seed.159     Bousset  is  inclined  to  hold  that  this  doctrine  is 
an  adaptation  by  Judaism  of  the  Samaritan  Messiah.     But 
certainly  this  could   not  have  been  done  of  intention ;  to 
the  contrary  the  latter  would  have  been  ranked  in  the  cate- 
gory of  Anti-Christ.     Rather,  with  Dalman  and  Schurer, 
this  Jewish  figure  must  be  regarded  as  an  artifice  of  exe- 1 
gesis  to  explain  such  passages  as  Dt.  33,  17;  Zech.  12,  17,1 
and  in  general  to  meet  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  suffer- J 
ing   Messiah.     On   the   other   hand,   as   we   shall   see,   the 
Samaritan  Messiah  dies,  but  by  natural  death,  in  accord- 
ance   with    the    primary    stage    of   Jewish    Messianism.100 
The  Samaritan  doctrine  of  the   Messiah  was   doubtless 
stimulated  by  the  Jewish  theology  at  an  early  period,  being 
subsequently  corroborated  to  the  mind  of  the  sect  by  its 
adaptable  exegesis  of  the  Pentateuch  and  its  interpretation 
of  the  history  of  the  age  of  the  Judges.     Hence  we  find 
Joshua   given   the  title   of   "  the   King "    in   the   Book   of 
Joshua,   passim,   while   the   Judges    are   also   all   kings.161 
Accordingly  the  regal  function  of  the  Messiah  has  its  pro- 
totype in  that  earlier  royal   succession.     Proof  texts    for 
this  kingly  line  may  have  been  found  in  Dt.  33,   17  and 
especially  v.  5  :     "  There  was  a  king  in  Jeshurun."     How- 
ever these   Pentateuchal   allusions   to   the   regency   of   the 
House  of  Joseph,  from  which  indeed  the  Messiah  was  to 
descend,  are  too  scanty  and  indefinite  to  have  provided  a 
sufficient  foothold   for  an  original  notion  of  the  Messiah 
on  Samaritan  soil ;  the  kingly  quality  of  their  Christ  was 
but  a   faint   reflection  of  the  Jewish   expectations   of  the 
glories  of  the  Son  of  David.     A  prophet  after  the  manner 
of  Moses   (Dt.    18)    was  what  the  Samaritans  desired  in 

159  See  Hamburger,  REJud  ii,  s.  v.  Mcssias  Sohn  Joseph;  Dalman. 
Der  leidende  und  sterbende  Messias  der  Synagoge,  1;  Schurer,  GJV 
ii,  535,  note   (with  extensive  bibliography)  ;  Bousset,  op.  cit.  211,  218. 

160  E.  g.  Jer.  33,  17;  Ps.  45. 

161  Lib.  Jos.  xxxix. 


ESCHATOLOGY  245 

their  Messiah;  this  notion  accordingly  limited  the  Samari- 
tan ideas.  He  was  to  be  a  Revealer  of  hidden  or  lost 
truths  like  the  one  the  Samaritan  woman  had  in  mind, 
and  inasmuch  as  there  -could  be  no  greater  prophet  than 
Moses  nor  one  equal  to  him,  the  Messiah  is  an  entirely 
inferior  personage.162  Accordingly,  in  contrast  with  the 
developed  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Messiah,  such  as  was 
abroad  since  the  Danielic  prophecy  of  the  Son  of  Man,163 
the  Samaritan  Messiah  never  attains  the  character  of  a 
divine  personality.  He  always  remains  human  and  the 
thought  concerning  him  moves  in  a  prosaic  plane. 

Inquiry  concerning  the  Messiah  has  been  one  of  the 
chief  points  of  the  European  correspondence  with  the  Sa- 
maritans. The  Epistles  show  that  the  word  Messiah  was 
known ;  thus  the  Hid  Epistle  to  Ludolf  says :  "  The  Mes- 
siah has  not  yet  arisen."  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Brethren 
in  England,  1675,  the  correspondents  content  themselves 
with  the  remark :  "  the  first  name  of  that  prophet  will  be 
M."  Also  in  another  passage  of  the  Epistle  it  is  said: 
"  We  know  his  name  in  accord  with  what  the  rabbis 
say."164 

But  the  Samaritans,  while  acquainted  with  "  Messiah," 
have  their  own  peculiar  term  for  that  personage,  and  herein 

162  Cowley,  op.  cit.  165,  rightly  corrects  the  theory  held  by  Juynboll, 
Merx,  Hilgenfeld  (the  one  which  I  had  adopted),  that  one  form  of  the 
Messianic  expectation  looked  for  the  re-incarnation  of  Moses  (Merx : 
of  Moses  or  Joshua).  But  there  is  no  proof  for  this  theory.  Only 
the  bishop  Eulogius  (in  Photius,  Bibliothcca,  Geneva,  1591,  col.  883) 
states  that  some  of  the  Samaritans  expected  the  Messiah  to  be  Joshua 
son  of  Nun.  But  it  may  be  questioned  if  the  bishop  was  not  mistaken 
in  understanding  the  likeness  of  the  Messiah  to  King  Joshua  as  an 
identity.  The  Samaritan  name  for  the  Messiah,  the  Restorer  (see  be- 
low), might,  after  the  analogy  of  Elija  who  appears  in  the  same  role 
in  Malachi,  have  suggested  the  return  of  the  great  prophet,  a  fairly 
common  notion  in  Judaism.  Still  no  evidence  of  this  notion  appears 
in  Samaritanism. 

163  E.g.  Jn.  7,  27. 

164  N.  ct  E.  115  (127).  A  Samaritan  guide  told  Robinson  that  the 
Messiah  was  known  by  the  Arabic  title  el-Muhdi,  i.  e.  the  Mahdi, 
BR  iii,  100. 


246  THE  SAMARITANS 

exhibit  an  independence  of  Judaism,  or  at  least  the  sur- 
vival of  a  more  primitive  strain  of  thought.  His  proper 
title  is  Ta'eb,  used  with  or  without  the  article  ha-.  Noth- 
ing in  Samaritan  literature  has  produced  a  greater  variety 
of  explanations  than  this  same  term.  Cellarius  says : 
"  There  is  need  of  an  CEdipus  for  the  interpretation  of  this 
name,"  and  he  has  been  justified  by  the  labors  scholars 
have  spent  thereupon.  For  the  history  of  its  interpreta- 
tion, which  includes  suggestions  of  Arabic  and  Persian 
origin,  reference  may  be  made  to  a  note  by  Gesenius.105 
It  is  this  scholar  who  is  now  generally  credited  with  having 
reached  the  proper  solution,  which  is  as  follows:100 

The  word  is  the  participle  of  the  root  y\T\}  the  Samari- 
tan Aramaic  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  31tt>,  "  return,"  "  do 
again,"  "  restore,"  the  latter  form  also  appearing  rarely 
in  the  Epistles  as  "2TW .  Through  the  Samaritan  indiffer- 
ence in  the  use  of  gutturals,  the  participle  also  appears 
spelt  2nn  but  without  influencing  the  pronunciation.167 
The  root  is  used,  as  in  the  Hebrew  religious  language,  of 
the  change  of  heart,  or  repentance,  of  man  or  God;10S 
hence  Taeb  has  been  interpreted  by  some  as  the  Penitent 
One,  who  vicariously  meets  God's  demand.  But,  with 
Gesenius,  it  is  to  be  understood  in  the  active  voice,  as  in  the 
Biblical  nut?  y\W> "  make  restoration,"  so  that  the  Samari- 
tan Messiah  is  the  Restorer.  And  this  is  in  fact  the  inter- 
pretation that  is  given  by  the  Samaritans  themselves,  as 
thus  in  one  of  their  most  recent  Epistles,  that  to 
Kautzsch  :109     "  This  word  2nn  means  the  one  who  con- 

1(55  Sam  Theol.  43,  n.  105. 

160  Ibid.  44;  adopted  by  de  Sacy,  N.  et  E.  29;  Cowley,  op.  cit.  164; 
etc. 

167  Cf.  Petermann,  Gramm.  Sam.  44.  It  appears  that  the  word  is 
vulgarly  pronounced  ha-Tab,  or  ha-Shab. 

108 E.g.  BS  ii.  No.  xiv,  Taw;  CS  iii,  22  (here  correct  Gesenius's  in- 
terpretation according  to  de  Sacy,  N.  et  E.  29). 

169  ZDPV  viii,  1521.  The  highpriest  defined  the  word  to  Barges  as 
"  le  Restaurateur  " ;  Les  Samaritains  de  Naplouse,  91. 


ESCHATOLOGY  247 

verts  the  people."  Heidenheim  connects  the  connotation 
of  the  term  with  the  Panuta :  the  Restorer  is  to  counteract 
the  turning  away  of  God's  favor.170  But  a  more  historical 
and  substantial  suggestion  has  been  made  by  Bousset,171 
who  aligns  the  term  with  an  early  Jewish  notion  of  the 
Messiah,  which  makes  of  him  the  Restorer.  This  idea  ap- 
pears, at  least  verbally,  concerning  Elija  in  Mai.  4,5f,  ac- 
cording to  which  passage  this  Messianic  personage  is  to 
"  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the 
heart  of  the  children  to  their  fathers,"  i.e.  restore  the  per- 
verted relations  of  society.  With  this  may  also  be  com- 
pared the  Messianic  "times  of  restoration,"  Acts,  3,  21. 172 
In  this  idea  of  a  Restorer  we  have  a  characteristic  mark 
of  Samaritanism,  whose  genius  harked  back  to  the  past 
far  more  than  that  of  Judaism,  for  the  larger  hope  of  the 
Canon  of  the  Prophets  led  the  way  for  the  Jewish  belief 
that  the  future  could  be  more  glorious  and  even  of  another 
character  than  the  past.  Doubtless  the  term  Taeb  also  in- 
cluded the  connotations  of  the  divine  and  human  repent- 
ance.173 

As  the  Samaritans  were  shut  up  to  the  Pentateuch,  they 
were  forced  to  find  therein  their  Messianic  proof-texts.  A 
Samaritan  Epistle174  gives  a  collection  of  such  texts, 
namely:  Gen.  15,  17:  "a  smoking  and  a  burning  lamp"; 
Gen.  40,  10:  "  to  him  shall  the  people  submit  themselves  " 
(with  appropriation  of  Juda's  blessing!);  Num.  24,  17: 
"He  shall  destroy  all  the  children  of  Seth;"  Dt.  18,  17: 
"  Thy  God  shall  raise  up  to  thee  a  prophet  like  unto  me, 

170  BS  Hi,  p.  xxviii. 

171  Op.  cit.  219. 

172  Bousset  also  adduces  Testament  Levi,  18.  The  notion  is  very 
ancient;  cf.  Is.  11,  iff. 

173  In  BS  ii,  89,  v.  S3,  Nu.  24,  5,  is  rendered :  "  How  goodly  are 
thy  tents,  O  Taeb"  (for  "Jacob").  This  is  evidently  a  play  upon  the 
root  of  "  Jacob." 

174  Of  year  1675 ;  N.  et  E.  No.  xxi.  Compare  Cowley,  op.  cit.  ihj, 
for  a  larger  list  of  proofs  from  a  hymn  of  the  XVth  Century. 


248  THE  SAMARITANS 

unto  him  shall  ye  hearken."  To  these  references  may  be 
added,  besides  Num.  24,  5,  already  cited,  ibid.  v.  7:  "  His 
king  shall  be  higher  than  Gog  "  ( following  a  Rabbinic  in- 
terpretation), while  "the  star  out  of  Jacob,"  v.  17,  is  also 
adduced  as  a  Messianic  symbol.175 

As  for  the  identity  of  the  Taeb,  he  was  to  come  of  the 
house  of  Joseph,  the  first  "  king  "  of  Israel,  and  inherit 
that  leader's  royal  qualities.176  For  the  doctrine  of  the 
manifestation  and  work  of  the  Taeb  we  may  refer  to  the 
lengthy  Midrash  on  the  subject  appearing  in  a  hymn  pub- 
lished at  length  by  Heidenheim.177  The  outline  of  the 
passage  is  as  follows : 

The  advent  of  Taeb  shall  be  in  peace  and  his  star  shall 
shine  in  the  heavens.  When  he  has  reached  adult  life, 
Yhwh  will  call  him,  teach  him  his  laws,  give  him  a 
scripture,  and  invest  him  with  prophecy.  He  shall  dwell 
upon  the  Holy  Hill.  Then  shall  be  revealed  the  Taber- 
nacle with  all  its  furnishings,  and  the  ancient  ritual  will 
be  restored  in  the  full  ministrations  of  the  priesthood. 
Israel  shall  dwell  in  safety  and  security,  and  perform  its 
solemn  feasts  in  peace,178  and  the  Taeb  shall  have  a  per- 
petual  kingdom  until   the   latter   day.     Confession   of   his 

175  See  BS  ii,  89,  No.  xx,  vv.  33,  35.  For  the  star  (also  "  star  of  thy 
prophet,"  and  "star  of  grace"),  ibid.  p.  88,  He,  v.  10;  p.  92,  v.  17; 
p.  96,  v.  32;  p.  72,  v.  24.  Cf.  Mt.  2,  2;  Test.  Levi,  18.  Moses  is  called 
the  Star  of  Creation,  BS  ii,  104,  v.  18.  It  may  be  observed  that  the 
Samaritans  have  an  original  exegesis  of  "  Shilo  "  in  Gen.  49,  10,  inter- 
preting it  in  malo  sensu  of  Solomon ;  so  aiso  Abu  Said's  Arabic  ver- 
sion. 

i7G  por  Eulogius's  statement  that  Messiah  is  to  be  Joshua  himself, 
see  above,  note  162.  It  would  appear  from  Mark  a,  195a,  that  Taeb 
would  not  be  greater  than  Joseph :  "  There  is  no  king  like  Joseph, 
even  as  there  is  no  prophet  like  Moses." 

177  BS  ii,  No.  xx,  He,  seq.  The  passage  was  published  and  treated, 
with  ignorance  of  Heidenheim,  by  Merx  in  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Eighth  International  Congress  of  Orientalists,  of  the  year  1889,  i,  2, 
p.  119,  and  by  Hilgenfeld,  in  the  Zcitschrift  fiir  wissenschaftliche  Theo- 
logie,  xxxvii,  233.  A  partial  translation,  based  upon  an  amended  text, 
is  given  by  Cowley,  op.  cit.  162. 

i78Cf.  Jer.  23,  6;  Nah.  1,  15. 


ESCHATOLOGY  249 

majesty  shall  be  made,  after  the  fashion  and  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Balaam,  by  a  representative  of  the  heathen.  No 
worldwide  dominion  is  predicated  of  the  Taeb,  his  func- 
tion is  solely  for  Israel.  The  hymn  then  (stanza  Zayin) 
briefly  refers  to  his  death  in  peace,  when  he  shall  come 
to  his  tomb  and  be  gathered  to  his  fathers.  (According  to 
Petermann179  he  shall  reign  no  years,  i.e.  the  age  of 
Joshua  {Jos.  34,  29),  and  less  than  that  of  Moses;  accord- 
ing to  an  Epistle  1S0  he  will  be  buried  alongside  of  Joseph.) 
But  "  the  star  of  Taeb "  will  shine  perpetually  over  his 
tomb  as  the  continued  sign  of  the  divine  grace.  Israel 
shall  continue  to  increase  most  marvellously,  and  the  saints 
shall  enjoy  all  prosperity. 

It  is  thus  the  chief  function  of  the  Taeb  to  introduce  the 
Millennium,  which,  as  our  Midrash  proceeds  to  relate,  is  to 
be  disturbed  by  the  grand  final  conflict  between  God  and 
the  forces  of  evil.  Here  we  have  the  replica  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  notions  of  Gog  and  Magog  and  of  Anti- 
christ. The  happy  condition  above  described  shall  last  for 
many  days.  But  at  last  God's  wrath  will  wax  hot  against 
the  Gentiles,  for  the  earth  will  again  corrupt  itself,  as  in 
the  days  of  the  Flood.  Then  will  come  the  Day  of  Ven- 
geance, the  Great  Day,  accompanied  with  cosmic  cata- 
clysms. "  The  light  of  the  sun  shall  grow  pale  at  the  be- 
ginning of  every  month,  and  the  moon  and  the  stars  shall 
not  give  their  light.  Every  high  place  shall  be  overthrown, 
and  the  valleys  and  hills,  with  quaking  at  the  Day  of  Ven- 
geance, its  glory  and  its  majesty."  181  The  earth  and  all  its 
natural  features  will  be  overturned.  All  things  will  be 
wiped  out  (stanza  Chet),  man  and  beast,  rivers  and  moun- 
tains, and  only  the  Eternal  Hill  will  be  left  in  the  midst 
of  the  Garden,  i.e.  Paradise,  for  the  residence  of  the  saints. 

179Reisen,  i,  284. 

180  The  Arabic  Epistle  to  the  English  Brethren,  1675;  N.  et  E.  209. 

181  I    follow    Cowley's    translation.     Cf.    Is.    2,   7ff ;   Joel,   3.     Cowley 
calls  attention  to  the  likeness  to  Mt.  24,  29,  37,  39- 


250  THE  SAMARITANS 

It  appears  that  all  die  from  fear  of  the  righteous  God. 
Then  comes  the  resurrection  and  the  judgment.  Among 
the  risen  ones  appears  Moses  who  acts  as  an  intercessor 
for  his  people.  God  then  holds  the  session  of  his  court, 
in  which  the  angels  act  as  inquisitors  of  good  and  evil,  and 
the  merits  of  the  respective  souls  are  weighed  in  the 
Scales.182  Israel  will  be  divided  into  two  classes,  the  good 
and  the  bad,  the  former  passing  into  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
the  latter  into  the  Fire. —  Such  is  the  outline  of  a  formal 
presentation  of  the  events  of  the  Latter  Days.  As  with 
all  eschatology,  so  in  Samaritanism  there  were  doubtless 
many  various  views  of  the  end  of  the  world.  Thus  Marka 
makes  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  a  time  of  woe  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  regards  his  coming  as  contemporaneous  with 
the  resurrection.183  We  also  note  in  correspondence  with 
the  assertion  of  Jn.  4,  42  concerning  the  Samaritan  expec- 
tation of  the  Taeb  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  that  an 
Epistle  teaches  that  all  peoples  will  make  submission  to  the 
Prophet  of  the  Last  Days  and  believe  in  him.184 

We  have  already  touched  upon  the  Samaritan  attitude 
towards  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead;  as 
we  have  seen  above,  the  sect  originally  held  to  the  old- 
fashioned  Sadducsean  position,  and  on  this  score  were  con- 
sidered heretics  by  Rabbinic  Judaism.  The  Church  Fathers 
find  frequent  occasion  to  notice  this  heresy.185  But  such 
information  is  only  partially  exact  for  the  IVth  Century  and 
afterwards,  being  due  to  tradition  or  else  to  the  survival 
of  the  elder  view  among  some  of  the  Samaritans,186  for 
in  Marka  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  appears  in  full 

182  See  above,  note  64. 

183  Marka,  65a. 

is*  N.  et  E.  205.  ...  TT 

185  E.g.  Origen,  Comm.  in  Mt  xxii,  23  (Migne,  xui,  1564);  Horn. 
xxv,  ad  Num.  (M.  xii,  763)  ;  Epiphanius,  Hares,  ix,  1 ;  Philastrius, 
Hares,  vii ;  etc.  .  ,rTTT 

is«A  Dosithean  sect  denied  the  resurrection;  see  Chapter  XIII,  §  1. 


ESCHATOLOGY  251 

force,  and  we  may  hold  that  from  his  age  at  least  this 
became  an  orthodox  tenet.  In  self-defence  against  the  at- 
tractive eschatologies  of  Judaism  and  Christianity,  Samari- 
tanism  had  to  formulate  some  theology  concerning  the  fu- 
ture; subsequently  Islam  gave  further  strength  to  the 
dogma.  In  course  of  time  the  idea  of  the  individual  resur- 
rection has  taken  the  place  of  the  notion  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  community,  and  on  the  whole  this  belief  is  phrased 
in  just  such  terms  as  are  used  in  other  religions.  Truly 
ethical  notions  are  connected  with  the  fears  and  hopes  of 
the  life  after  death ;  not  the  Israelite  as  such  but  only  the 
good  Israelites  can  attain  felicity,  and  the  thought  of  death 
is  often  made  the  theme  of  solemn  admonition.187  We 
also  find  at  times  the  elder  notion  adhered  to,  once  common 
in  Judaism  and  Christianity,  that  only  the  good  shall  ex- 
perience the  resurrection.188  As  we  have  observed,  Para- 
dise is  conceived  of  as  earthly,  being  located  on  Gerizim, 
although  no  further  sensuous  ideas  are  connected  with  it, 
as  in  Islam.  In  one  passage  at  least  appears  a  more  spirit- 
ual and  mystical  faith :  "  My  future  abode  is  the  seat  of 
thy  dominion,  where  is  neither  sea  nor  ocean  nor  heaven 
itself."189  In  general  Samaritanism  is  sober  in  its  concep- 
tions of  the  after  life  and  rarely  shares  in  the  exuberant 
imaginings  on  the  subject  which  mark  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity; herein  we  see  the  ancient  Sadducsean  strain  sur- 
viving. This  antique  heritage  is  also  preserved  in  the 
name  given  to  the  cemetery  by  the  Samaritans;  it  is  called 
the  House  of  the  Dead,  not,  as  with  the  Jews,  the  House 
of  the  Living, —  a  significant  contrast.190 

187  E.g.  BS  ii,  No.  cxx,  a  hymn  on  death  and  repentance ;  No. 
cxxi,  a  requiem  hymn.  Prayers  for  the  dead  appear  in  the  latter,  v. 
20  seq. 

™*CS  vii,  10. 

189  CS  iii,  13. 

«o  Mills,  op.  cit.  206. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
THE  SAMARITAN  SECTS;  GNOSTICISM. 

§    I.       THE    SAMARITAN    SECTS.1 

Extensive  testimony  is  given  by  the  Samaritan  Chron- 
icles, especially  by  Abu'l  Fath,  to  the  existence  of  sects 
since  an  early  period ;  to  this  information  much  can  be 
added  from  Patristic  and  Muslim  sources.  It  is  the  more 
unfortunate  that  the  data  concerning  these  sects  are  meagre 
and  confused,  because  these  phenomena  exhibit  the  oper- 
ation of  external  forces  affecting  Samaritanism. 

The  arch-heresy  of  the  Samaritans  according  to  all  ac- 
counts is  that  of  the  Dositheans.  But  before  taking  up 
this  sect,  it  is  advisable  first  of  all  to  look  at  the  others 
which  are  grouped  along  with  it  by  the  Christian  author- 
ities. First,  the  Jewish-born  Hegesippus,  of  the  lid  Cen- 
tury, in  a  passage  quoted  by  Eusebius,  enumerates  the 
Dositheans,  the  Gorothenians  and  the  Masbothseans,  to 
each  of  which  he  assigns  an  eponymous  founder.2  The 
Syrian  Epiphanius  is  the  next  Christian  writer  to  list  the 
Samaritan  sects,  which  he  makes  four  in  number,  namely 
the  Essenes,  the  Sebuaeans,  the  Gorothenians,  and  the  Dosi- 

1  For  the  literature,  see  inter  al.,  Juynboll,  Lib.  Jos.  no;  Nutt,  Sa- 
maritan Targum,  46;  Appel,  De  rebus  Samaritanorum,  go  (a  brief 
essav:  De  Dosithco  et  Dositheanis).  For  the  Rabbinic  references,  see 
S.  Krauss,  Dosithcc  et  les  Dosithcens,  REJ  xlii,  ioor,  p.  27 ;  A.  Biichler, 
Les  Dosithcens  dans  le  Midrasch,  REJ  xlii,  220;  xliii,  50,  who  con- 
siderably criticizes  Krauss's  credence  to  the  historic  reliability  of  the 
Rabbinic  material. 

2  Eusebius,  Historic  ecclesice,  iv.  22.  "  Gorothenians "  is  variously 
vocalized,  though  the  tradition  of  the  consonants  is  fairly  certain. 
Nicetas  has  Sorothenians,  Thes.  orthod.  fidei,  i,  35;  see  Heinichen, 
Eusebius,  ad  loc. 

252 


THE  SECTS  253 

theans.3  It  would  be  natural  then  to  identify  the  Mas- 
bothaeans  with  the  Sebuaeans.4  Of  the  Sebuaeans  Epi- 
phanius  reports  that  out  of  hostility  to  the  Jews  and  to 
avoid  friction  with  them  this  sect  observed  the  Passover  in 
the  month  Tishri,  so  that  their  feast  of  Tabernacles  fell 
about  the  Jewish  Passover.  The  name  has  been  variously 
explained,  but  the  best  interpretation  is  that  of  Juynboll, 
who  deduces  it  from  the  Hebrew  y"Dt5%  "  hebdomad,"  and 
makes  it  refer  to  the  Passover  celebration  in  the  seventh 
month.5  There  is  a  single  reference  to  this  sect  in  Abu' I 
Fath,  131,  where  the  Subuai  appear  as  opposed  to  Baba 
Rabba  and  as  having  their  own  ecclesiastical  organization. 
Of  the  Gorothenians  nothing  further  is  known  than  Epi- 
phanius' s  information  that  they  agreed  with  the  Dositheans 
in  observing  the  orthodox  calendar  as  against  the  Sebu- 
aeans.6 As  for  the  same  authority's  mention  of  the  Essenes, 
all  he  tells  us  is  that  they  were  orthodox  Samaritans,  and 
in  the  disputes  of  the  sects  sided  with  the  party  who  hap- 
pened to  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  their  respective  com- 
munities. Some  evidence  will  appear  below  of  Essene  in- 
fluences in  Samaria. 

Of  the  Dositheans  we  possess  much  more  extensive  in- 
formation, but  all  of  a  confused  and  contradictory  char- 
acter, and  coming  from  every  source,  Samaritan,  Jewish, 
Patristic,  and  Arabic.     It  is  a  question  whether  there  is 

3  Hares,  i,  10;  cf.  his  Respons.  ad  epistol.  Acacii  et  Pauli.  Epipha- 
nius  is  followed  by  Theodoret,  Hares,  i.  1 ;  John  of  Damascus,  in 
Cotelerius,  Eccles.  Grcec.  monum.  i,  282;  Nicetas,  /.  c. 

4  If  the  former  is  an  independent  sect,  we  have  only  the  definition 
offered  by  Isidor  Hispalensis,  Etymologic?,  viii,  4,  according  to  whom 
they  held  that  Christ  ordered  them  to  sabbatize  in  all  things  —  the  sect 
thus  appearing  as  a  Christian  body.  Ewald,  Geschichte  des  Volkes 
Israel,  1868,  vii.  135,  identifies  them  with  the  Basmothseans  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  vi,   I,  6. 

5  Lib.  Jos.  112.  This  etymology  is  supported  by  the  Arabic  form 
given  in  the  next  sentence  of  the  text.  For  other  explanations,  see 
Nutt,  op.  cit.  47. 

G  Heidenheim  would  find  a  geographical  origin  for  the  name,  BS  ii, 
p.  xxxviii. 


254  THE  SAMARITANS 

not  more  than  one  sectary  of  the  name  Dositheus,  while  the 
age  of  the  origin  of  the  respective  sects  is  uncertain.  The 
following  variant  traditions  have  to  be  examined. 

( i )  There  appear  a  Dostai  and  a  Sabbai  as  the  priests 
sent  by  the  Assyrian  king  to  Samaria.7  (2)  Sabbaeus 
and  Theodosius  appear  in  the  legend  reported  by  Josephus, 
AJ  xiii,  3,  4,  concerning  a  dispute  carried  on  before  Ptol- 
emy Philometor  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  the 
advocates  of  the  latter  being  those  two  men.8  (3)  Ac- 
cording to  Abu'l  Fath,9  there  arose  in  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander a  sect  called  Dustan,  for  which  name  an  obscure 
etymology  is  offered.10  These  people  held  for  impure  a 
fountain  into  which  dead  vermin  had  fallen ;  altered  the 
time  for  reckoning  the  purification  of  women ;  forbade  the 
eating  of  eggs  except  those  which  were  found  inside  a 
properly  slaughtered  fowl ;  considered  dead  snakes  as  un- 
clean, as  also  cemeteries,  and  held  anyone  whose  shadow 
fell  upon  a  grave  as  impure  for  seven  days.  They  re- 
jected the  formula,  "  Blessed  be  our  God  forever,"  and 
substituted  "  Elohim  "  for  "  Yhwh  ;  "  they  held  that  God 
was  to  be  worshipped  in  the  land  Zuwaila  (?),  until  he  is 
worshipped  (again)  on  Gerizim ;  they  altered  the  calendar 
by  giving  thirty  days  to  each  month,  and  rejected  the  sea- 
sons of  fast  and  mortification.  Like  the  Jews,  they  counted 
Pentecost  from  the  day  after  the  Passover.  A  priest 
might  enter  an  infected  house  as  long  as  he  did  not  speak ; 
if  there  was  a  question  whether  the  impurity  of  a  house 
extended  to  the  adjoining  tenement,  the  case  was  decided 
by  watching  whether  a  clean  or  an  unclean  bird  first  lighted 
upon  the  latter.     On  the  Sabbath  they  ate  and  drank  only 

7  Tanchuma,   sect.   Wayyesheb,  §   2;    Yalkut,   ii,   234;   Prrke   Elieccr, 
c.  38,  sub  fin.     A  variant  for  Sabbai  is  Zecbaria. 

8  See  above,  p.   76.     Theodosius   and   Dositheus  are   interchangeable 
forms ;  cf.  the  Biblical  Jehoiachin  and  Conia. 

0  P.  82 ;  cf.  Chron.  Adler,  37. 

10  The  word  is  identical  with  "  Dositheans  " ;   for  an  attempt  to  ex- 
plain the  Arabic  etymology,  see  de  Sacy,  Chrestomathie  arabe,  i,  335. 


THE  SECTS  255 

from  earthen  vessels,  not  from  those  of  metal  —  as  they 
might  be  tempted  to  purify  the  latter  on  the  Sabbath, 
whereas  clay  vessels  cannot  be  purified ;  food  and  water 
were  provided  for  cattle  on  the  day  before  the  Sabbath 
so  as  to  last  over  the  latter  day.  They  separated  from  the 
Samaritans  and  had  their  own  synagogues.  They  had  for 
highpriest  a  certain  Zara,  a  man  of  profound  learning  and 
son  of  the  Samaritan  highpriest,  who  had  been  excommu- 
nicated for  his  conduct  with  a  woman  of  bad  character. 

(4)  Turning  now  to  Patristic  authorities,  we  learn  of 
a  Dositheus  who  was  an  early  Samaritan  heresiarch,  and, 
with  some  authorities,  the  father  of  all  heresy.  Hippolytus, 
a  scholar  of  Origen,  began  his  Book  of  Heresies  with  the 
Dositheans;  the  same  position  is  taken  by  the  Pseudo- 
Tertullianic  Adversus  omnes  liccrcses,  1,  which  work  is 
probably  based  upon  the  lost  book  of  Hippolytus,  and 
which  makes  Dositheus  the  root  of  the  Samaritan  heresy, 
"  the  first  to  reject  the  prophets."  Philaster  also  follows 
suit,  saying  that  Dositheus  was  a  Jew  who  denied  the 
resurrection,  being  followed  by  Sadok,  the  founder  of  the 
Sadducees.  The  Clementine  Recognitions,  i,  54,  gives  like 
priority  to  Dositheus.11 

(5)  Another  class  of  Patristic  references  places  Dosi- 
theus in  the  1st  Century  A.  C,  and  generally  in  some  sort 
of  relation  with  Simon  Magus.  Hegesippus  puts  him  im- 
mediately after  Simon.12  Origen  makes  several  references 
to  this  heretic;  he  assigns  him  to  the  1st  Century,  after 
the  time  of  Christ,  and  alleges  that  he  made  himself  out 
to  be  the  Messiah  promised  by  Moses,  thus  being  in  the 
same  category  with  the  pretenders  Judas  and  Theudas.  Of 
this  sect  Origen  reports  that  only  thirty  remained  in  his 
day.     They  rejected  the  Jewish  notion  of  sabbatic  limits, 

11  For    Hippolytus,    see    Photius,    Bibliotlieca,    exxi;    Philaster,    De 
hares,  4;  Jerome,  Adv.  Lucifer.  23,  quotes  Pscudo-Tertullian. 

12  See  note  2. 


256  THE  SAMARITANS 

and  required  that  one  should  remain  in  the  same  condition 
throughout  the  Sabbath.13  Jerome  follows  Hegesippus  in 
placing  Dositheus  after  Simon.14  Subsequently  this  tradi- 
tion is  developed  so  as  to  make  him  the  teacher  of  Simon, 
as  in  the  Pseudo-Clementine  literature,  according  to  which 
the  latter  usurped  his  master's  place.15 

(6)  Finally,  according  to  a  second  report  of  Abu'l 
Fath,  there  is  the  sect  founded  by  one  Dusis  in  the  age  of 
Baba  Rabba,  the  IVth  Century,  of  which  sect  that  chron- 
icler gives  a  long  description.16  Dusis,  son  of  Fufil 
(Philip  ?),  who  seems  to  be  assigned  an  Egyptian  origin, 
came  in  danger  of  his  life  for  adultery  committed  with  a 
Jewess  in  a  Jewish  district.  He  obtained  pardon  however 
by  undertaking  to  go  to  Samaria,  there  to  found  a  new 
sect.  He  arrived  at  the  town  Askar,  and  associated  him- 
self with  a  sage  named  Yachdu,  whom  he  led  into  some 
extreme  literal  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures.  But  Dusis 
played  his  friend  false  by  conniving  at  a  charge  of  fornica- 
tion against  him,  and  so  had  to  flee  the  land,  settling  at 
Shuwaika  (the  Biblical  Soco,  SW  of  Jerusalem).  Here 
he  composed  many  books,  and  upon  leaving  the  place 
counselled  his  landlady  that  none  should  read  them  until 
he  had  first  washed  in  the  well  which  was  close  by.  Then 
he  departed,  went  to  Anabata,  where  he  entered  a  mountain 
cave;  here  he  died  of  hunger,  and  his  body  was  devoured 
by  dogs.  Meanwhile  search  for  him  was  still  prosecuted, 
and  the  highpriest's  nephew  Levi,  a  very  pious  young  man, 
with  a  party  of  men,  finally  came  upon  his  tracks  at  Shu- 

13  Adv.  Celsum,  i,  57;  vi,  11 ;  In  Matt.  comm.  c.  33;  Horn.  25  in 
Luc;  In  loan  xii,  27;  Dc  princ.  iv,  17;  Philokaha,  i,  17. 

14  Adv.  Lucifer.  8.     But  for  another  report,  see  above,  note  11. 

15  Clem.  Rccog.  ii,  8;  cf.  Horn,  ii,  24.  Dositheus  had  a  fixed  college 
of  thirty  disciples. 

16 Abu'l  Fath,  151;  cf.  Chron.  Neub.  442,  where  he  is  called  Dustis, 
son  of  Falfuli;  also  Chron.  Adler,  64.  Abu'l  Fath's  narrative  follows 
immediately  upon  that  concerning  Simon  Magus,  a  connection  remind- 
ing us  of  some  Patristic  arrangements. 


THE  SECTS  257 

waika.  The  woman  told  them  of  Dusis'  writings  and  his 
injunctions  concerning  them.  Evidently  out  of  fear,  the 
party  resolved  to  descend  into  the  well,  with  the  pretext 
that  it  could  do  no  harm.  But  when  the  first  who  bathed 
emerged  from  the  pool,  he  cried :  "  My  faith  is  in  thee 
and  in  Dusis  thy  servant !  "  Each  of  the  men  had  the  like 
experience,  until  at  last  Levi,  angered  at  this  manifesta- 
tion, also  dared  to  make  the  descent;  but  on  emerging  he 
too  uttered  the  like  confession :  "  My  faith  is  in  thee, 
Yhwh,  and  in  Dusis  thy  prophet!"  Then  they  read 
the  books  of  Dusis  and  found  he  had  changed  the  greater 
part  of  the  Law.  At  the  following  Passover  Levi,  who 
was  called  upon  to  read,  made  use  of  one  of  Dusis'  read- 
ings, and  upon  being  rebuked  defied  the  Samaritans  for 
their  unbelief,  whereupon  he  met  a  martyr's  death.  His 
followers  removed  to  a  city  near  Jerusalem,  where  they 
founded  a  sect,  having  as  chief  objects  of  its  cult  the  wri- 
tings of  Dusis  and  palm-leaves  stained  with  Levi's  blood, 
which  might  be  seen  only  by  those  who  had  first  fasted 
seven  days  and  nights.  As  for  their  customs,  they  cut  off 
their  hair,  and  made  all  their  prayers  in  water,  hiding 
their  bodies  in  the  bath  by  plashing  the  water  over  them. 
They  greatly  honored  the  Sabbath,  observing  feasts  on  that 
day  only,  and  if  they  travelled  at  all  on  the  Sabbath, 
they  did  not  take  their  hands  out  of  their  garments.  They 
believed  the  dead  would  rise  again  soon,  and  when  one  of 
their  number  died,  they  girded  him,  and  put  a  stick  in  his 
hand  and  shoes  on  his  feet,  for  the  reason  that  "  when  we 
rise,  we  shall  rise  in  haste."  They  also  believed  that  as 
the  dead  man  rose  from  the  tomb,  so  should  he  enter  Para- 
dise. From  this  party  of  Dusis  went  forth  many  sects  — 
which  will  be  noticed  below. 

With  this  history  the  account  Epiphanius,  Hares,  i,  13, 
gives  of  the  Dositheans  largely  agrees.  According  to  that 
authority,  the  Dositheans  confess  the  resurrection,  abstain 

17 


258  THE  SAMARITANS 

from  animal  .food,  practise  either  celibacy  or  else  sexual 
abstinence  after  the  death  of  the  wife,17  and  in  general 
are  devoted  to  ascetic  habits.  They  are  also  scrupulous 
in  avoiding  contact  with  other  people.  As  for  the  founder 
Dositheus,  he  was  a  very  learned  Jew  who,  disappointed  of 
his  ambitions  in  his  own  church,  went  over  to  the  Samari- 
tans and  founded  his  sect  among  them.  Finally  he  retired 
to  a  cave,  and  there  died  of  voluntary  starvation,  his  body 
being  afterwards  eaten  by  worms  and  flies.  Also  the  ref- 
erences to  the  Dositheans  left  by  Origen,  as  noted  under 
(5),  evidently  refer  to  this  same  sect;  he  remarks  their 
strictness  as  to  travelling  on  the  Sabbath,  Dc  princ.  iv,  17, 
their  possession  of  some  books  of  Dositheus,  and  the  belief 
in  certain  fables  about  him,  how  that  he  had  not  tasted 
death  but  was  still  alive,  In  Joan,  xiii,  27. 

Of  the  Dosithean  sect  which  denied  the  resurrection  (No. 
4)  we  have  evidence  late  into  the  Arabic  period.  Photius 
has  preserved  an  account  of  a  dispute  held  by  Eulogius, 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  probably  about  600  A.C.,18  with  two 
parties  of  Samaritans ;  one  of  these  followed  "  a  certain 
Dosthes  or  Dositheos,"  and  claimed  him  as  the  prophet 
foretold  by  Moses;  he  denied  the  resurrection,  held  that 
the  world  is  incorruptible,  and  had  composed  many  writ- 
ings. The  other  party  believed  in  Joshua  as  the  prophet, 
and,  it  may  be  inferred,  accepted  the  resurrection.19  The 
bishop  delivered  a  lengthy  written  argument  against  the 
sects,  epitomized  by  Photius,  and  a  council  summoned  by 
him  passed  a  decree,  which  doubtless  contributed  to  the 
repression  of  the  Samaritans  in  Egypt. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Arabic  period  down  to  the 

17  Either  thus,  or  "  after  procreating  children,"  the  text  being  uncer- 
tain ;  see  Oehler,  Corpus  Haresiologicum,  ad.  loc. 

18  Photius,  Bibliothcca,  no  ccxxx,  ed.  Stephan,  Geneva,  161 1,  col. 
883.  The  text  places  the  bishop  in  reign  of  emperor  Marcian,  but  there 
is  reason  to  correct  this  to  the  reign  of  Mauricius,  582-603 ;  see  Krauss, 
op.  cit.  39. 

19  For  this  belief  in  Joshua,  see  Chap.  XII,  note  162. 


THE  SECTS  259 

middle  of  the  IXth  Century,  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
supplements  to  Codex  C  of  Abu'l  Fath20  to  violent  feuds 
between  the  Dositheans  and  the  orthodox  Samaritans. 
Later  we  possess  the  evidence  of  Arabic  writers  to  the 
Dositheans.  First,  Masudi  (d.  956)  speaks  of  two  sects 
among  the  Samaritans,  the  Kushan  and  the  Dustan,  "  one 
of  which  teaches  that  the  world  is  eternal."21  The  great 
writer  on  religions,  Shahrastani  (d.  1153)  is  our  next  in- 
formant :  the  two  sects  of  the  Samaritans  are  the  Dustaniya 
and  the  Kushaniya,  and  their  chief  point  of  difference  is 
that  the  former  deny  a  future  life,  teaching  that  recom- 
pense comes  in  this  world,  while  the  latter  believe  in  a 
world  hereafter.22  Abu'l  Fida  (d.  1331)  repeats  Shah- 
rastani's  notice,23  while  Makrizi  quotes  Masudi.24  Accord- 
ing to  the  Epistle  of  1810  there  were  then  no  Dositheans 
in  existence.25 

The  terms  given  for  the  two  sect?  by  the  Arab  writers 
require  examination,  namely  Dustanians  and  Kushanians, 
as  also  the  epithet  applied  to  the  former,  who  are  called 
al-Alfaniya,  by  Shahrastani,  or  al-Faniya,  by  Abu'l  Fida. 
The  former  authority  explains  Kushaniya  as  "  the  truthful 
ones,"  and  Alfaniya  as  "  the  liars."  Juynboll's  suggestion 
that  the  former  term  is  a  corruption  for  "  qushtaniya,"  from 
the  Aramaic  fct&'p ,"  truth,"  is  a  happy  one,  and  better  than 
de  Sacy's  theory  that  it  stands  for  "  Kuthim,"  for  the 
Samaritans  never  use  that  name  of  themselves.  For  the 
other  word  with  its  doubtful  reading,  various  etymologies 
have  been  offered.     Juynboll  takes  it  from  the  root,  Ify, 

20  Epitomized  by  Vilmar,  Abu'l  Fath;  see  pp.  lxxx,  lxxxii,  lxxxiii. 

21  De  Sacy,  Chrestomathie  arabe,  i,  342.     The  dogma  specified  is  that 
noticed  by  Eulogius. 

22  Ed.  Cureton,  i,  170;  Haarbriicker's  translation,  i,  258;  see  de  Sacy, 
op.  cit.  i,  363. 

23  Fleischer,   Abu'l-fedce  histona  ante-Islamitica,   160 ;   see   de   Sacy, 
op.  cit.  i,  344. 

24  De  Sacy,  op.  cit.  i,  113,  305. 

25  N.  et  E.  127. 


260  THE  SAMARITANS 

•'injure  one's  rights";  Vilmar,  accepting  alfaniya,  under- 
stands it  as  "  millenarian."  As  the  name  is  probably  an 
opprobrious  epithet  given  by  the  stronger  party,  Juynboll's 
etymology  is  preferable,  unless,  as  I  would  suggest,  faniya 
is  to  be  connected  with  panuta,  i.e.  the  Dositheans  are  the 
sect  of  the  Aversion.26 

As  to  the  origin  of  the  Dosithean  sect  Shahrastani  gives 
the  following  information :  "  There  arose  among  the  Sa- 
maritans a  man  called  al-Ilfan,  who  claimed  prophethood 
and  believed  that  he  was  the  one  Moses  had  promised, 
the  star  of  whom,  it  is  written,  should  shine  with 
the  light  of  the  moon.  His  appearance  took  place  about 
ioo  years  before  Christ."  This  description  agrees  very 
closely  with  that  of  the  heresiarch  with  whose  sect  Eulo- 
gius  contended,  while  the  date  corresponds  to  that  given 
by  some  Patristic  authorities  concerning  their  Dositheus. 

With  traditions  referring  wildly  to  a  space  of  time  rang- 
ing from  Alexander  the  Great  to  the  IVth  Century  A.C., 
what  definite  results  as  to  chronology  and  personality  can 
we  gain  from  these  contradictory  reports  concerning  a  here- 
siarch Dositheus  or  Dusis,  and  a  sect  of  Dositheans  or 
Dustan?  To  begin  with,  we  can  at  once  reduce  our  six 
categories  to  a  smaller  number.  As  for  (i)  and  (2), 
their  traditions  of  a  Sabbai  and  Dositheus,  or  Theodosius, 
are  probably  mere  reminiscences  of  two  early  sects  the 
Sebuseans  and  Dositheans.  At  the  utmost  there  may  be 
some  truth  in  the  tradition  that  Dositheus  opposed  the 
Jews  in  Egypt,  as  Josephus  relates.  As  for  Sabbseus,  he 
may  be  nothing  more  than  an  eponymous  invention  for 
the  origin  of  the  Sebuseans.27  At  all  events  Josephus  gives 
us  a  date,  the  first  Christian  Century,  before  which  the 
rise  of  the  Sebuaeans  and  one  Dosithean  sect  must  have 

26  For  these  various  theories,  see  de  Sacy,  op.  cit.  i,  341 ;  Juynboll, 
Lib.  Jos.  112;  Vilmar,  op.  cit.  p.  lxxii;  Nutt,  op.  cit.  49. 

27  See  the  beginning  of  the  Chapter. 


THE  SECTS  26 1 

taken  place.  The  two  categories  (1)  and  (2)  may  then 
be  identified  with  (3),  the  first  mention  in  Abu'l  Fath  of 
a  Dosithean  sect,  the  one  which  arose  in  the  age  of  Alex- 
ander. 

But  Abu'l  Fath  records  at  great  length  another  sect  of 
practically  the  same  name  (6).  The  Patristic  data  in  (4) 
and  (5)  have  then  to  be  aligned  with  one  or  the  other  of 
the  two  named  by  Abu'l  Fath,  if  we  would  attempt  to 
reduce  the  six  categories  to  two.  This  simplifies  the  case 
better  than  the  views  of  Nutt  and  Krauss,  who  find  three 
heresiarchs  named  Dositheus.28  Can  we  go  further  and 
reduce  these  two  to  one?  Such  is  the  natural  aim  of  the 
critical  scholar,  and  it  is  the  argument  of  Appel.29  This 
scholar's  reasons  would  lie  in  the  many  general  resem- 
blances between  the  two  sects  recorded  by  Abu'l  Fath. 
Similar  aspersions  are  made  against  the  life  and  character 
of  the  respective  heresiarchs;  both  are  rigoristic  sects,  and 
follow  some  Jewish  usages.  The  rejection  of  the  formula, 
"  Blessed  be  God  forever,"  by  the  first  sect,  is  claimed  by 
Appel  to  be  their  denial  of  the  Samaritan-Sadducsean  form- 
ula, and  he  assumes  their  adoption  of  the  Pharisaic  form, 
"  Blessed  be  God  forever  and  ever,"  which  would  be  a  con- 
fession of  the  resurrection.30  Both  sects  then  would  possess 
the  same  eschatological  tenets. 

But  plausible  as  Appel's  hypothesis  is,  I  am  not  able  to 
accept  it  in  the  place  of  the  one  that  I  had  already  reached 
before  reading  his  essay  —  namely  that  there  were  two 
Dosithean  sects.  As  we  have  seen,  according  to  a  series 
of  Patristic  references  one  sect  of  Dositheans  denied  the 
resurrection,  and  so  are  placed  in  connection  with  the  Sad- 
ducees.  The  later  evidence  from  Eulogius  down  to  the 
Islamic  authorities  knows  only  of  one  sect,  namely  the  one 

28  Nutt,  op.  cit.  48 ;  Krauss,  op.  cit.  36. 

29  L.  c. 

30  Referring  to  Berakot,  Mishna,  c.  9,  sub  fin.,  for  the  Sadducseans. 


262  THE  SAMARITANS 

which  rejected  that  doctrine.31  The  one  argument  against 
this  solid  line  of  testimony  is  the  rejection  by  the  first  sect, 
as  recorded  by  Abu'l  Fath,  of  the  formula,  "  Blessed  be 
God  forever ;  "  but  this  omission  may  have  been  intended 
to  deny  more  pronouncedly  than  before  the  disbelief  in 
resurrection.  As  for  the  rigorism  predicated  of  the  two 
sects,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  this  feature  is  common  to  all 
sects,  and  is  not  remarkable  in  Samaritanism,  which  itself 
was  literalistic  and  rigorous  in  an  old-fashioned  way. 
That  there  were  two  sects  would  appear  from  the  state- 
ment of  the  well-informed  Origen,  that  of  the  Dositheans 
he  describes  there  were  only  thirty  survivors  in  his  day, 
whereas  there  is  evidence  of  another  Dosithean  sect  of 
size  and  importance  far  down  into  the  Arabic  period,  flour- 
ishing in  Egypt  as  well  as  in  Palestine.  It  may  be  argued 
that  it  is  unlikely  that  there  were  two  sects  of  the  same 
name ;  but  it  is  not  impossible  that  two  heresiarchs  bore 
the  very  common  Samaritan  name  of  Nathanael-Dosi- 
theus.32  There  is  also  this  distinction  evident  in  the  two 
reports  of  Abu'l  Fath,  that  the  second  sect  was  distinctly 
an  enthusiastic  body,  possessing  apocryphal  writings,  as- 
cetic customs,  etc.,  thus  differing  from  the  first. 

The  most  probable  reconstruction  of  these  data  will  then 
be  the  assumption  of  two  sects  founded  by  and  named 
after  different  Dosithei.  The  first  of  these  would  have 
arisen,  following  the  note  of  Josephus  and  one  line  of  Pa- 
tristic tradition,  before  the  Christian  era,  perhaps  in  Egypt. 
It  was  a  reforming  sect,  harking  back  to  a  greater  liter- 

31  Appel  has  not,  in  his  confessedly  brief  thesis,  treated  the  Arabic 
evidence. 

32  Beside  the  many  Nathanaels  appearing  in  the  highpriestly  line, 
there  is  the  Hellenistic  poet  Theodotus.  Observe  also  the  obscure 
reference  in  an  Epistle,  N.  ct  E.  112  (121),  to  "the  Targum  of  Nathan- 
ael"  (see  below,  p.  292.)  A  Dustan  is  also  a  liturgical  composer; 
Cowley,  JE  x,  673.  For  the  great  frequency  of  the  name  in  Judaism, 
see  Krauss,  op.  cit.  32;  Biichler,  op.  cit.  xliii,  224.  N.  B.  the  proba- 
bility that  the  legend  of  Simon  Magus  is  based  upon  two  historical 
Simons  (Salmond,  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.,  s.  v.). 


THE  SECTS  263 

alism  of  interpretation,  at  the  same  time  coming  under  the 
influence  of  Judaism;  however  it  continued  the  ancient  Sa- 
maritan doctrine  of  the  denial  of  the  resurrection.  Subse- 
quently with  the  general  Samaritan  acceptance  of  that  doc- 
trine, by  the  IVth  Century,  this  faction  became  the  minority 
and  were  forced  into  the  condition  of  a  heterodox  sect;  it 
survived  however  into  the  lid  Millennium.  But  the  other 
sect  is  very  different  in  spirit  and  practice.  It  is  to  be 
counted  among  the  many  enthusiastic  and  absurd  cults 
which  had  their  rise  about  the  beginning  of  our  era.  It 
was  ascetic  and  encratitic;  the  ritual  bath  was  an  accom- 
paniment of  all  devotion;  certain  mystical  books,  among 
them  those  of  "  the  Sons  of  the  Prophets,"  were  included 
in  their  scriptures,  while  there  was  the  Messianic  devotion  to 
the  founder  of  their  faith,  along  with  the  cult  of  a  martyr 
of  their  sect.  They  were  ardent  resurrectionists  of  a  very 
materialistic  order  of  belief,  and  were  awaiting  the  end 
of  all  things  with  millenarian  expectations.  We  can  proba- 
bly even  identify  the  influences  producing  this  sect.  Sev- 
eral points  of  practice  connect  them  with  the  mysterious 
community  of  the  Essenes,  namely,  not  only  their  frequent 
baptisms,  but  also  their  scrupulousness  in  hiding  their 
bodies  when  in  the  bath,  which  is  to  be  compared  with  the 
Essene  rule  of  wearing  a  loincloth  when  bathing,  while 
further  the  fear  of  contact  with  others  —  amongst  the  Es- 
senes even  with  those  of  a  lower  caste  in  the  order  —  is 
common  to  both.  The  vegetarianism  of  the  Dositheans  also 
agrees  with  Jerome's  report  of  the  like  practice  among  the 
Essenes,  although  this  notice  is  now  generally  invalidated 
by  criticism.33  Some  element  of  truth  therefore  is  found  in 
Epiphanius's  statement  making  the  Essenes  a  Samaritan 
sect.34     The  rise  of  this  body  may  then  be  placed  about  the 

33  For  these  practices  of  the  Essenes,  see  Schiirer,  GJV  ii,  567. 

34  Some  Morning  Hymns  open  with  very  poetical  apostrophes  to  the 
sun-  BS  ii,  Nos.  xlvi,  xciii.     May  this  phenomenon  have  Essene  origin? 


264  THE  SAMARITANS 

beginning  of  our  era,  a  date  which  would  agree  with  the 
Patristic  references  collocating  Dositheus  with  Simon; 
Abu'l  Fath's  assignment  of  its  origin  to  Baba  Rabba's  age 
is  a  post-dating  common  to  Samaritan  chronology.  This 
sect  had  evidently,  from  Origen's  note,  a  short-lived  exis- 
tence, as  it  was  already  moribund  in  his  day.  It  doubt- 
less was  a  product  of  the  influences  which  induced  the 
Samaritan  adoption  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and 
in  this  respect  secured  a  triumph  over  its  like-named  rival. 
We  may  notice  here  the  account  Abu'l  Fath  gives  of  a 
number  of  similar  enthusiastic  sects  which,  he  says,  sprang 
from  the  party  we  have  just  described.35  The  first  was  the 
sect  of  the  Be'unai,  or  Ab'unai,  which  followed  an  an- 
chorite life.  Of  a  sect  founded  by  one  Ansama,  or  Antami, 
nothing  particular  is  told.  The  next  sect,  which  taught 
that  all  laws  were  abolished,  were  called  the  Kilatai  or 
Katitai.  Accepting  the  latter  reading,  which  has  double 
authority,  we  may  connect  the  word  with  Encratite,  and 
suppose  the  sect  to  have  been  libertine  in  character,  the 
contempt  of  the  flesh  passing  over  into  license,  a  phenome- 
non marked  in  many  Christian  sects.36  Another  sect,  the 
Sadukai,  had  a  "  mystic  "  faith.  Yet  another  took  to  itself 
the  name  of  "  the  Proud  and  Humble ;  "  they  went  and 
lived  in  the  desert  across  Jordan;  we  naturally  compare 
the  "  Afflicted  Ones  "  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Chris- 
tian Ebionites.  The  next  sectarian  recorded  is  Shalih  ibn 
Tirun  ibn  Nin,  or  Sakta  ben  Tabrin;  his  Arabic  name  as- 
signs him  to  the  age  of  Islam.  He  was  an  extremist  in 
departing  from  the  ancient  customs,  even  giving  up  the 
ascent  of  Gerizim,  and  having  Puritanic  traits  like  those 
of  the  Karaites.     The   sect  of  the   Sons   of  Josadak,   or 

35  Abu'l  Fath,  159.  Cf.  Chron.  Adler,  70,  which  is  much  briefer  and 
with  a  different  order  of  sects. 

36  Clement  notes  a  sect  of  Entychitae,  a  branch  of  the  Simonians, 
Stromata,  vii,  17.  They  appear  as  Eutychetse  in  Theodoret,  H ceres. 
i,  1. 


THE  SECTS  265 

Sadok,  was  more  orthodox,  but  made  some  ritual  innova- 
tions. A  certain  Aulian  founded  a  sect  which  appears  to 
have  had  a  communistic  basis.  Finally  there  was  the  sect 
of  the  Faskutai,  which  proceeded  to  the  extreme  in  daring 
fleshly  passion,  until  at  last  they  all  passed  over  into  the 
worst  lasciviousness.  May  this  name  be  connected  with 
the  Greek  physikos,  or  psychikosf  The  sect  would  then 
be  another  specimen  of  encratitic  delusion.  Samaritanism 
thus  experienced  the  variegated  religious  influences  of  the 
first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  and  we  have  to  assume 
for  it  in  its  small  sphere  a  life  of  inner  sectarian  turmoil, 
very  unlike  the  hard  and  fast  orthodoxy  into  which  it  has 
loner  since  settled  down. 


8  2.     Simon  magus;  gnosticism;  kabbalism. 

Many  of  the  early  Christian  writers  assert  that  Simon 
Magus  (Acts,  8),  was  one  of  the  earliest  heresiarchs,  if  not 
the  first,  that  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Church.  In  fact 
an  extensive  romance  has  been  spun  about  that  mysterious 
personage,  appearing  especially  in  the  apocryphal  Clemen- 
tine literature.  To  the  student  of  the  New  Testament  and 
Patristics  the  inquiry  into  the  relation  of  Simon  to  Samari- 
tanism would  appear  to  be  of  prime  importance.  In  the 
following  pages  the  Samaritan  data  on  Simon  will  be  col- 
lected and  their  relation  to  Christian  references  noted, 
along  with  the  consideration  of  his  assumed  influence  on 
the  Samaritan  sect;  but  the  results  will  prove  disappointing 
to  the  student  who  desires  more  light  on  that  arch-here- 
siarch. 

In  Acts,  8,  Simon  appears  as  a  sorcerer  and  an  impostor 
whom  his  dupes  acknowledge  as  "  the  so-called  Great  Power 
of  God."  Justin  Martyr,  himself  a  citizen  of  Neapolis- 
Shechem,  although  not  a  Samaritan,  is  the  next  to  give 
details   concerning   Simon's   life   and   character.     He  was 


266  THE  SAMARITANS 

born  at  Gittai  in  Samaria;37  almost  all  the  Samaritans  and 
many  of  other  nations  believed  in  him,  and  he  was  accom- 
panied by  a  woman,  a  former  prostitute  named  Helena, 
whom  he  declared  to  be  his  "  first  conception,"  hvoia  7rpwTr/. 
Justin  himself  says  that  he  had  written  a  special  treatise 
against  the  Simonian  heresy,  and  it  is  thought  probable 
that  this  work  is  the  basis  of  Irenseus's  treatment 
of  the  sect.  This  Father  gives  an  ampler  account  of 
Simon's  doctrine,  which  has  become  a  perfect  example  of 
full-blown  Gnosticism.  Other  features  of  the  heresy  are 
given  in  Hippolytus's  Refutation  of  all  Heresies,  with  spe- 
cial stress  upon  its  immoral  features.  Later  there  is  the 
development  of  the  romance  of  Simon  with  its  caricature  of 
St.  Paul,  found  in  the  Pseudo-Clementines,  which  has  been 
so  thoroughly  exploited  by  the  school  of  F.  C.  Baur.38 

In  the  Samaritan  Chronicles  "  Simon  the  Sorcerer  "  ap- 
pears only  as  a  wonder-worker  and  as  an  opponent  of  the 
Christians.39  His  birthplace  was  'Alin  (Abn'l  Fath)  or 
Tablin  {Chron.  Adler).  A  long  anecdote  is  given  recount- 
ing how  his  magic  worked  the  death  of  an  innocent  man, 
whom  he  later  restored  to  life.  He  then  went  to  Armiya, 
or  Armina,  evidently  Rome, —  this  in  correspondence  with 
the  Christian  tradition,  which  is  as  ancient  as  Justin.  He 
had  encounters  with  the  Christians,  whom,  according  to 
Chron.  Adler,  he  overcame  with  his  magic.     He  then  went 

37  The  word  appears  in  our  Patristic  references  as  TitOup,  Tittuv. 
After  the  analogy  of  the  Greek  representation  of  place-names,  this 
probably  stands  for  the  Hebrew  Gittaim ;  cf.  2  Sam.  4,  3;  Neh.  11,  33. 
Place-names  compounded  with  gath  were  common  in  Palestine,  and 
there  is  no  tradition  of  the  exact  location  of  Simon's  birthplace.  Rob- 
inson may  be  correct  in  identifying  it  with  Kuryet-Jit,  7  mi.  W.  of 
Nablus,  on  the  road  to  Joppa ;  LBR  134. 

38  The  references  in  Justin  are  found  in  Apol.  i,  26;  56;  ii,  15;  C. 
Tryph.  120;  in  Irenseus,  in  his  Hccrescs.  i,  23.  For  an  admirable  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject,  see  Salmond  in  the  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.,  s.  v. 
Simon  Magus.  Justin  does  not  appear  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the 
Samaritan  sect;  cf.  Chap.  IX,  sub  fin. 

39  Abu'l  Fath,  157;  Chron.  Adler,  67.  The  MSS  give  both  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Greek  forms  of  the  name,  Sim'on  and  Simon. 


GNOSTICISM  267 

to  the  philosopher  Philo  of  Alexandria,  and  asked  his  help 
to  destroy  the  Christians;  but  Philo  bade  him  let  the 
thought  alone,  for  "  if  this  thing  be  from  God,  none  will 
be  able  to  exterminate  it  "  (cf.  Acts,  5,  39).  Finally  Simon 
returned  to  his  birthplace  and  died  there,  being  buried  "  in 
the  valley  over  against  the  house  of  the  disciple  who  first 
testified  to  the  Messiah,  whose  name  was  Stephen."40  The 
age  of  Simon  is  placed  by  the  chroniclers  in  the  IVth 
Century ;  but  the  story  of  his  connection  with  Philo  evinces 
a  truer  chronological  tradition.  To  sum  up,  the  Samaritan 
version  of  the  Simon  legend  is  very  scanty,  being  based 
on  the  Christian  romance,  and  yet  embracing  some  inde- 
pendent details  drawn  probably  from  a  Palestinian  form  of 
the  story.  It  possesses  no  information  concerning  Simon's 
doctrines. 

Finally  the  question  arises  as  to  the  Samaritan  origin  of 
the  Gnostic  heresies  which  defiled  "  the  virginity  "  of  the 
early  Church.  According  to  the  Fathers  and  especially  the 
heresiologues,  the  first  heretics,  or  amongst  the  first,  were 
Dositheus  and  Simon,  and  the  latter's  disciple  Menander,41 
the  last  two  being  Gnostics.  Palestine  had  long  been  the 
meeting-place  and  crucible  of  the  religions  of  East  and 
West,  and  no  region  was  better  fitted  to  be  the  peculiar 
home  of  syncretism  than  Samaria.  Lying  next  door  to 
Judaea,  it  was  susceptible  to  the  attractions  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  and  likewise  had  ample  opportunity  to  affect  both 
Judaism  and  its  daughter  Christianity.  Yet  there  is  little 
or  no  proof  for  the  hypothesis  that  the  Samaritan  religion 
was  responsible  for  these  processes  of  amalgamation,  or 

40  According  to  early  Christian  tradition  Stephen  was  buried  by 
Gamaliel  in  his  own  tomb  at  Kaphar-gamala  (or  Kaphar-Gamaliel?), 
20  miles  from  Jerusalem,  the  remains  being  removed  to  Jerusalem  in 
415;  see  Cave,  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  "Life  of  St.  Stephen." 

41  See  the  Patristic  references  in  the  preceding  Section.  For  Menan- 
der, see  Justin,  /.  Apol.  26,  56.  Another  disciple  of  Simon  was  Cleo- 
bius,  Apostolic  Constitutions,  vi,  16. 


268  THE  SAMARITANS 

became  the  mother  of  Gnosticism.  So  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  sound  the  obscure  ages  of  Samaritan  religion,  even 
according  to  the  hostile  Jewish  evidence,  we  can  find  no 
syncretistic  features  therein,  no  native  tendency  to  Gnosti- 
cism. Simon  Magus  appears  not  as  a  type  of  Samaritan- 
ism,  but  only  as  an  incident;  doubtless  there  is  exaggera- 
tion concerning  the  universality  of  his  influence  upon  the 
Samaritans,  as  recorded  in  Acts  and  by  Justin.  From 
what  we  learn  of  his  doctrine  in  these  two  sources,  he 
probably  found  his  following  rather  amongst  the  Hellenistic 
population  of  Samaria,  than  in  the  Samaritan  sect.  His 
claim  to  be  the  Great  Power  of  God  represents  nothing 
we  find  in  Samaritan  doctrine,  whose  Messianism  was  of 
a  very  primitive  type.  Further,  he  left  behind  no  influ- 
ence, either  upon  Samaritan  religion  or  upon  its  historical 
traditions.  Samaritanism  was  touched  by  like  influences 
on  the  circumference,  as  appears  from  the  sects  described 
above,  but  the  latter  seem  to  have  been  of  small  importance 
and  to  have  separated  from  the  orthodox  community,  and 
so  were  soon  lost.  Whatever  may  be  the  worth  of  the  tra- 
dition of  the  syncretistic  origin  of  the  Samaritan  sect  found 
in  2  Ki.  17,  the  Samaritans  by  the  1st  Century  A.C.,  had 
been  for  centuries  nothing  else  than  a  Jewish  sect. 

It  is  true  that,  as  we  saw  in  the  Chapter  on  Samaritan 
theology,  there  are  considerable  traces  of  an  incipient  Gnos- 
tic speculation,  as  in  the  childish  inquiries  into  the  origin 
of  certain  mystic  things  like  the  Book  of  the  Law,  or  of 
such  a  personage  as  Moses.  But,  as  abundantly  appeared 
in  that  Chapter,  all  these  speculations  have  their  parallel 
in  orthodox  Judaism.  Critical  comparison  and  chronology 
indicate  that  in  such  developments  the  Samaritans  were 
borrowing  from  the  far  stronger-minded  Jewish  theology; 
there  is  no  original  phenomenon  of  the  kind  in  the  former 
sect.  In  fact  in  these  developments  of  Samaritanism,  ap- 
pearing especially  in  Marka,  we  have  nothing  else  than  a 


GNOSTICISM  269 

faint  reflex  of  that  process  in  Judaism  which  is  a  form  of 
Gnosticism,  and  to  which  the  technical  name  of  Kabbalism 
had  best  be  given.  This  tendency  appeared  already  in  New 
Testament  times,  and  was  serious  enough  to  require  the 
attention  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians;  it  constantly 
manifests  itself  in  the  Talmud,  still  more  in  the  Midrashim, 
while  the  later  Kabbala  worked  out  the  process  into  a 
logical  philosophy.  Yet  Samaritanism,  while  a  debtor  in 
part  to  Jewish  Kabbalism,  never  went  the  whole  length; 
for  such  speculations  its  dry,  unimaginative  genius  seems 
to  have  been  unfitted.  In  a  word  Samaritanism  cannot  be 
held  responsible  for  Simon  Magus,  or  for  the  Gnostic  de- 
velopments of  which  the  Christian  heresiologues  have  made 
him  the  archetype.42 

42  The  chief  advocate  of  an  extensive  Gnosticism,  even  veritable 
Simonianism,  as  existing  in  Samaritan  literature,  is  that  assiduous 
scholar  Heidenheim  ;  see  especially  BS  ii,  p.  xxxv.  But  he  advances 
no  proofs  for  anything  but  what  is  found  in  incipient  Jewish  Kab- 
balism. He  takes  the  frequent  divine  epithet  a^p  as  representing 
the  Simonian  expression  ecrrws,  Clem.  Horn,  ii,  22 ;  yet  the  term  is  used 
by  Philo,  De  110m.  mat.  1052.  The  Glory  is  only  an  ancient  Jewish 
theologumenon,  equivalent  to  the  Shekina.  We  may  also  cite  such 
Kabbalistic  phrases  as  "  the  Line,"  by  which  God  created  the  world, 
and  "the  treasury  of  knowledge";  BS  ii,  57,  v.  6;  85,  v.  12.  Some 
other  like  instances  are  given  above,  Chapter  XII,  §  3.  But  no  theory 
of  a  developed  Gnosticism  or  Kabbalism  can  be  built  on  these  meagre 
data.  Reference  may  be  made  to  Cowley's  pertinent  remarks  on  the 
subject,  JQR  viii,  571. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE   LANGUAGES   AND   LITERATURE   OF  THE 
SAMARITANS.1 

§    I.       THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE. 

The  native  tongue  of  the  Samaritans  was  the  Hebrew, 
the  great  monument  of  their  use  of  this  language  being 
their  text  of  the  Pentateuch.  But  Hebrew  met  with  the 
same  fate  in  Samaria  as  in  the  Jewish  territories  of  Pales- 
tine; it  early  succumbed  to  the  predominance  of  the  Ara- 
maic, whose  intrusion  as  the  vernacular  took  place  some 
centuries  before  the  Christian  era.  Except  as  a  sacred 
language  Hebrew  suffered  a  long  eclipse,  until,  with  the 
passing  of  the  Aramaic  before  the  new  tongue  of  Islam, 
the  use  of  Hebrew  again  revived,  so  that  the  literature  of 
the  lid  Christian  Millennium,  when  not  written  in  Arabic, 
was  composed  in  Hebrew.  The  latter  is  the  language  used, 
along  with  the  Arabic,  in  the  correspondence  with  Euro- 
pean scholars.  Even  as  in  Jewish  literature,  the  Samari- 
tans preserved  some  classical  sense  in  their  use  of  their 
sacred  tongue;  thus  the  idiom  of  the  waw-consecutive  ap- 
pears.2 But  in  general  the  Hebrew  has  become  thoroughly 
debased  under  the  influences  of  Aramaic  and  Arabic. 

§    2.       THE  ARAMAIC  LANGUAGE. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  last  pre-Christian   Millennium 
the    West-Aramaic    became    the    vernacular    in    Palestine. 

1  See   especially  Nutt,  Sam.   Targ.  77 ;   Kautzsch,  RE  s.  v.  Samari- 
taner;  Cowley,  JE  s.  v.  Samaritans. 

2  E.  g.  BS  ii,  §  2. 

270 


LANGUAGES  271 

The  form  which  it  adopted  in  Samaria  can  hardly  be  called 
a  distinct  dialect,  so  closely  is  it  related  to  the  neighboring 
dialectical  varieties,  especially  that  of  the  Jews  of  Galilee. 
It  shows  a  somewhat  larger  use  of  Hebraisms  and  Greek 
words  than  its  neighbors.  Its  principal  monument  is  the 
Samaritan  Targum,  or  rather  Targums,  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Unfortunately  this  Targumic  literature  has  become  so  de- 
based in  its  text  by  transmission  for  centuries  through 
scribes  who  were  ignorant  of  Aramaic,  that  it  is  no  longer 
a  reliable  witness  to  the  Samaritan  dialect,  unless  subjected 
to  exhaustive  philological  criticism.  As  Kautzsch  says, 
Kohn  has  convincingly  proved  that  "  the  usual  assumption 
of  peculiar  (so-called  '  Kuthsean  ')  roots  and  words  in  the 
Samaritan  Aramaic,  rests  merely  upon  the  wholly  untrust- 
worthy corruption  of  the  Targum  MSS."  Hence  the  at- 
tempts of  scholars  since  Castellus'  day  to  connect  the  pe- 
culiarities of  this  dialect  with  the  tradition  of  the  origin  of 
the  Samaritan  sect  from  Assyrian  colonists  fall  to  the 
ground.  No  satisfactory  lexicon  of  this  Samaritan  Ara- 
maic dialect  has  been  compiled,  although  one  is  promised  by 
Vollers ;  the  lexical  attempts  and  the  grammars  are  recorded 
in  the  foot-note.  Aramaic  composition  lasted  as  late  as  the 
Xlth  Century,  when  Hebrew  began  to  supersede  it,  ap- 
parently entirely  replacing  it  by  the  XlVth  Century.  The 
Targums  went  out  of  use,  although  the  memory  of  them  is 
retained  in  the  Epistles.  Petermann  says  :3  "  The  Samari- 
tan translation  has  almost  entirely  fallen  out  of  use."4 

3  Reisen  i,  285. 

4  See,  for  the  true  characterization  of  the  dialect,  Kohn,  Zur  Sprache, 
Litteratur  und  Dogmatik  der  Samaritaner,  99 ;  cf.  p.  206 ;  Kautzsch, 
Grammatik  d.  Biblisch-Aramaisclien,  13.  For  a  comparative  list  of 
forms  and  words  in  the  Palestinian  dialects,  see  Dalman,  Grammatik 
der  jiidisch-palastinischen  Aramaisch,  33;  according  to  the  compara- 
tive tables  there  presented,  the  Samaritan  almost  always  agrees  with 
the  Galilaean  dialect  as  against  the  Judaean.  Grammars  have  been  pub- 
lished by  the  following  scholars :  Crinesius,  Ravis,  Morinus.  Hilleger, 
Cellarius,  Otho,  Masclef,  Stohr,  Uhlemann,  Nicholls,  Petermann, 
Rosenberg.     Of  these,  Morinus,  Hilleger,   Cellarius,  Otho,   Uhlemann, 


2J2  THE  SAMARITANS 


§    3.       THE  ARABIC  LANGUAGE. 

With  Islam's  conquest  of  Syria  in  the  decade  following 
Mohammed's  death,  the  potent  Arabic  displaced  the  local 
Aramaic  dialects,  with  the  exception  of  remote  districts  or 
where  the  native  tongues  survived  as  ecclesiastical  lan- 
guages. In  general  the  Samaritan  Arabic  is  of  a  provin- 
cial, vulgar  type,  containing  many  Hebraisms  and  Arama- 
isms.  The  literary  elegance  of  the  classical  literature  of 
the  Arabs  had  its  influence  however,  and  a  superior  ideal 
was  followed  in  the  Arabic  translations  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  in  purpose  at  least,  by  the  chronicler  Abu'l  Fath. 

§    4.       THE   SAMARITAN    SCRIPT    AND    INSCRIPTIONS. 

The  script  employed  by  the  Samaritans  not  only  for 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  but  also  often  for  Arabic,  differs 
from  the  Jewish  square  character,  and,  as  representing  a 
much  earlier  type  of  the  so-called  Phoenician  character,  is 
an  object  of  interest  to  the  epigraphist. 

Fortunately  a  few  earl)'-  monuments  are  preserved  which 
show  an  alphabet  of  much  more  antique  form  than  that 
used  in  Samaritan  MSS,  the  great  majority  of  which  date 
from  the  XII Ith  Century  and  onwards,  although  a  few 
bear  earlier  datings.5  The  most  considerable  of  these  monu- 

Petermann  give  glossaries.  The  only  lexicon  is  that  of  Castellus  in 
his  Lexicon  heptaglotton,  published  when  only  the  Targum  was  known. 
(For  the  titles  of  these  works,  see  Bibliography.)  In  his  Grammar 
Petermann  has  given  most  valuable  transliterations  representing  the 
modern  Samaritan  pronunciation,  and  on  the  same  basis  attempted  a 
philological  study  of  the  Hebrew  entitled,  Versuch  einer  hebmischen 
Formenlehre  nach  der  Aussprache  der  heutigen  Samaritaner  (criticism 
by  Noldeke  in  Gottinger  Gelchrte  Nachrichten,  1868,  p.  485).  For  the 
Samaritan  grammarians'  views  of  the  pronunciation,  see  Noldeke, 
Ueber  einige  sam.-arab.  Schriften. 

5  The  St.  Petersburg  Codex  No.  4  is  dated  717  B.  C,  and  the  Wat- 
son Codex  II.  (see  Bibliography)  bears  the  early  date  of  655,  although 
this  profession  of  so  high  an  antiquity  has  aroused  general  skepticism. 
The  bulk  of  the  great  Barberini  Triglot  has  the  date  1227.  On  the 
dating  of  Samaritan  MSS,  see  Gottheil,  JBL  1906,  p.  29. 


Pal.  Ex.  Fund. 

Plate  i.     The  Shechem  Decalogue  Inscription, 


Xc   ^    CKX'.^ty^^  Xc  :A  HA  X<rtK\^MUj\ 


^  *  ^y-Aa*  y     liwi^ 


From  Lidzbarski. 


■*i«X.^ 


Plate  2.    The  Shechem  Inscription  of  the  Ten  Words  of 
Creation. 


3km 


Plate  3.     The  Leeds  Fragment  of  a  Decalogue  Inscription, 


From  Lidzbarski. 

Plate  4.    The  First  Emmaus  Inscription. 


xk      -t        ■*     .j      ,.       .  r~ 

1  »ius    •  '*"*...* 


If^' 


Plate  5.     The  Second  Emmaus  Inscription. 


^Pi^WfP^iL, 


Plate  6.     The  Third  Emmaus  Inscription. 


sS/i 


Plate  7  (Sobernheim,  Abb.  8.) 

:  y  :  Si   (non-Biblical)     :  *i»tn  :  PP  :  Ott'3 

:  sn  ••  by  ■■  r\i  ■  1  (Ex.  12,  13)    :  a  :  3 :  n>  :  1 

(£*.    12,   23)   :  ^  :  2  :  ^N  :  3?  :  OH  :  '  :  1 

Translations  of  the  text  signified  by  abbreviations :  "  And  I 
will  pass  over  you  and  there  shall  be  no  plague  amongst  you.  And 
Yhwh  will  pass  over  the  door  and  will  not  allow  the  destroyer  to 
plague  you." 


%-x  \  rn\ 


mm 
»a  -pa 

ins 


Plate  8.     Bronze  Tablet   (Sobernheim,  Abb.  15,  16). 

Obverse:   "The  Existent    (  nnnp),  Yhwh,   None  Like  God,  One." 
Reverse:    "Yhwh,    Great,  Victorious    Yhwh,    his    Name"    (to    be 
read  ioti>    ?). 


SCRIPT  AND  INSCRIPTIONS 


*/3 


ments  are  two  inscriptions  which  hail  from  Nablus  and 
from  the  one-time  synagogue  of  the  Samaritans,  but  which 
is  now  the  Muslim  mosque  Chizn  Yakub  ("the  weeping 
of  Jacob,"  i.e.  for  Joseph),  also  called  al-Chadhra,  "the 
mosque  of  the  green  (tree),"  and  according  to  Samaritan 
tradition  "  the  portion  of  the  field "  which  Jacob  pur- 
chased (Gen.  33,  18).  One  of  these  inscriptions  is  built 
in  the  east  wall  of  the  minaret  of  the  present  mosque,  and 
contains  the  Decalogue  in  abbreviated  form.6  A  repro- 
duction from  a  photograph  is  herewith  given  (Plate  i), 
along  with  the  translation,  as  follows : 

I thy  God 

2 Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  Yhwh 

3.  thy  God  in  vain.     Keep  the  day 

4.  of  the  Sabbath  to  sanctify  it.     Honor  thy  father 

5.  and    thy    mother.     Thou    shalt    not    murder.      Thou 

shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

6.  Thou  shalt  not  steal.     Thou  shalt  not  witness  against 

thy  brother 

7.  falsely.     Thou  shalt  not  covet  the  house 

8.  of  thy  neighbor.      (Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh- 

bor's wife.) 

9.  And  thou  shalt  build  there   (an  altar  to  Yhwh  thy 

God).7 
10.  Arise  Yhwh,  return  Yhwh.8 

6  The  first  transcript  of  it  was  made  by  the  German  consul  Schultz, 
and  his  narrative  and  copy  of  the  inscription  were  edited  by  Rodiger 
in  the  Hallesche  Allgcm.  Litcratur-Zeitung,  1845,  p.  658.  It  was 
treated  independently  by  Blau  with  notes  from  another  copy  by  Blau 
in  ZDMG  xiii,  275,  with  plate,  and  with  notes  by  Rodiger,  and  again 
by  Rosen  on  the  basis  of  his  own  far  more  correct  transcript,  ZDMG 
xiv,  622,  with  plate,  and  with  supplementary  remarks  by  Rodiger,  p.  632. 
See  Rosen's  article  for  full  account  of  the  provenance  of  the  inscrip- 
tion.    For  the  Decalogue  in  the  Liturgy,  see  Heidenheim,  DVJ  hi,  486. 

7  This  line  from  Dt.  27,  5,  being  part  of  the  long  pericope  introduced 
by  the  Sam.  Pent,  after  the  Decalogue,  which  itself  was  regarded  as 
the  Xth  Commandment.  For  a  MS  thus  numbering  the  X  Command- 
ments, see  Rosen,  /.  c. 

8  Num.  10,  35-36.    The  above  text  is  conflate  from  Ex.  and  Dt. 

18 


274  THE  SAMARITANS 

The  second  inscription,  which  is  in  almost  perfect  con- 
dition, was  found  in  the  ruins  about  the  above-named 
mosque  and  sold  to  Jacob  esh-Shelaby;  it  was  first  pub- 
lished by  Rosen.9  The  accompanying  Plate  (No.  2)  repro- 
duces the  inscription ;  the  following  is  the  translation,  which 
shows  that  we  have  here  the  Ten  Words  of  Creation. 

1.  In  the  beginning  God  created.     And  said 

2.  God,  Let  there  be  light.     And  God  said, 

3.  Let  there  be  a  firmament.     And  God  said,  Let  be 

collected 

4.  the  waters.     And  God  said,  Bring  forth  (grass) 

5.  the  earth.     And  God  said.  Let  there  be 

6.  lights.     And  God  said,  Let  swarm 

7.  the  waters.     And  God  said,  Bring  forth 

8.  the  earth.     And  God  said,  Let  us  make 

9.  man.     And  God  said,  Behold  I  have  given  you. 

10.  And  God  saw  all  that 

11.  he  had  made,  and  behold  it  was  very  good.     And  he 

said,  I 

12.  am  the  God  of  thy  father,  the  God  of  Abraham 

13.  and  the  God  of  Isaac  and  the  God  of  Jacob. 

14.  [margin]    Yhwh,   Yhwh,   a   God   mer(ciful   and) 

gracious,  the  Existent,  Yhwh. 

It  may  be  observed  that  this  grouping  of  the  Ten  Words  of 
Creation  is  very  common  in  Samaritan  literature,  and  also 
has  its  Rabbinic  parallels.10 

Yet  another  inscription,  greatly  mutilated,  is  now  in  the 

9  In  the  article  cited  above,  ZDMG  xiv,  622,  a  plate  being  given. 
Transliteration  and  facsimile  may  also  be  found  in  Lidzbarski,  Handb. 
d.  nordsem.  Epigraphik,  440,  and  Plate  xxi. 

10  See  Heidenheim,  DVJ  i,  563.  According  to  Pirke  Abot,  v,  1,  "by 
ten  words  the  world  was  created."  There  was  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  which  was  the  tenth  word,  both  the  Samaritan  and  the  Rabbinic 
parallels  having  "  he  said "  only  nine  times.  The  more  common 
opinion  was  that  the  first  word  was  contained  in  the  introductory 
statement  of  creation.     See  Taylor,  ad  be. 


SCRIPT  AND  INSCRIPTIONS  275 

Library  of  the  Leeds  Philosophical  and  Literary  Society.11 
The  fragment  (see  Plate  3)  is  the  lower  right-hand  quar- 
ter of  a  Decalogue  inscription,  being  like  that  found  at 
Nablus,  but  differing  in  the  last  line.  The  last  six  com- 
mandments can  be  traced;  then,  in  the  last  line  but  one, 
appears  "  an  altar  unto,"  thus  helping  us  to  fill  out  the 
lacuna  in  line  9  of  the  Nablus  inscription.  Of  the  last 
line  only  flt^D  M1?  H  is  visible,  but  it  may  be  supplied 
from  Dt.  33,  4,  so  that  the  inscription  once  read :  "  Moses 
commanded  unto  us  a  law,  an  inheritance  for  the  assembly 
of  Jacob." 

As  to  the  date  of  these  inscriptions  we  may  argue  with 
Rosen  that  they  are  anterior  to  the  disruption  of  the  Sa- 
maritan community  by  Justinian ;  but  epigraphy  is  not  in  a 
position  to  be  more  specific.12 

But  other  epigraphic  material  of  an  earlier  date  has 
been  discovered  at  al-Amwas,  the  ancient  Emmaus-Nicopo- 
lis.  The  first  of  these  inscriptions,  discovered  by  Clermont- 
Ganneau  in  1881,  contains  only  nine  characters  of  the 
alphabet,  and  reads :  D^iy^  UW  "p"Q :  "  Blessed  be  the 
Name  even  (and)  forever"  (see  Plate  4).  This  is  gen- 
erally spoken  of  as  a  Samaritan  inscription;  it  is  however 
much  more  archaic  than  any  other  Samaritan  inscrip- 
tions we  possess,  while  the  words  "  and  forever  "  are  remi- 
niscent of  the  Pharisaic  formula  of  benediction,  "  forever 
and  ever,"  which  was  eschewed  by  the  Samaritans.13 

Two  other  inscriptions  however  have  been  found  by  La- 
grange at  Emmaus,  which  are  doubtless  of  Samaritan 
origin  as  they  bear  the  genuine  Samaritan  type,  while  their 
collocation  of  Scripture  texts  is  parallel  to  the  phenomenon 

11  Published  by  Wright  in  PSBA  vi,  1883,  Nov.  p.  25,  with  plate. 
It  was  given  to  the  Rev.  Joseph  Hammond  by  the  Samaritan  high- 
priest  in  the  sixties. 

12  For  the  XVIIIth  Century  inscription  in  the  present  synagogue, 
see  Chap.  Ill,  note  13. 

13  For  this  inscription,  see  the  Bibliography  under  Clermont-Gan- 
neait.    Lidzbarski  gives  a  copy  of  it,  Plate  xxi. 


276  THE  SAMARITANS 

of  the  Damascus  inscriptions  to  be  noticed  below.  The 
first  of  these  inscriptions,  which  we  may  call  the  second 
Emmaus  inscription,  was  found  in  1890.14  A  copy  of  it  is 
here  given  ( Plate  5 );  it  is  to  be  transcribed  and  translated 
as  follows: 

mm  nonton  mn^  mm 

•urm  mm  idu> 

mm  -pin  xn 

\T\vr*  to  px 

'  Yhwh  is  a  hero  in  war  [Ex.  15,  315],  Yhwh  :  is  his 
name.  Yhwh,  thou  hast  conducted  him  [cf.  Ex.  15,  13]  : 
Come  thou  blessed  of  Yhwh  [Gen.  24,  31 ;  cf.  Ps.  118,  26; 
Mk.  11,  9,  etc.]  :  There  is  none  like  the  God  of  Jeshurun 
[Dt.  33,  26]."  There  appears  to  be  reference  to  some 
historic  event,  the  hero  of  which  is  addressed  in  almost 
Messianic  terms. 

The  third  Emmaus  inscription  was  found  by  Lagrange  in 
1896.16  The  inscription  (Plate  6)  is  legible  enough  to 
allow  us  to  make  out  the  following  Biblical  text : 

nnsn  ty  mm  nosi 
xn1?  iwnn  jm  x1?! 

which  is  found  in  Ex.   12,  23:     "Yhwh  will  pass  over 
the  door:     And  will  not  allow  the  destroyer  to  enter."17 
At   the   more   distant    Gaza   Clermont-Ganneau   has   re- 
ported that  he  saw  in  a  private  residence  in   1874  a  Sa- 

14  For  Lagrange's  first  report,  see  Bibliography.  His  final  readings 
are  found  in  Revue  biblique,  ii   (1893),  IX4- 

15  The  change  from  c*'N  ,  "man,"  is  the  reading  of  the  Samaritan 
Hebrew,  ad  loc.  For  the  same  anti-anthropomorphic  tendency,  cf. 
Ps.  24,  8.  This  was  a  favorite  Samaritan  text :  see  the  Damascene  in- 
scriptions given  by  Sobernheim  (No.  I),  and  M.usil   (No.  IV). 

16  Reported  by  him  to  de  Vogue,  who  published  it  with  plate  and 
notes  in  Revue  biblique,  v  (1896),  433;  de  Vogue's  transcription  is 
given  here  in  Plate  6. 

17  N.  B.  the  loss  of  the  guttural  in  the  next  to  the  last  word  —  in 
good  Samaritan  fashion.  This  Paschal  text  also  appears  in  the  Da- 
mascene inscriptions;   Sobernheim,  No.  Ill,  and   Musil,  No.  I. 


SCRIPT  AND  INSCRIPTIONS  277 

maritan  inscription  of  nineteen  short  lines,  engraved  on  a 
long  marble  block ;  unfortunately  he  failed  to  obtain  a 
transcription  or  a  satisfactory  photograph.  According  to 
his  recollection  it  was  liturgical  in  character.18 

A  second  Gaza  inscription,  first  reported  by  Abel,19  is 
also  a  fragment  of  the  Decalogue,  giving  the  opening  words, 
Ex.  20,  2~4a  (Dt.  5,  6-8a),  breaking  off  at  "  likeness."  It 
is  prefaced  with  mrp  UW2 ,  which  indicates  an  origin  in 
the  age  of  Islam. 

In  this  connection  reference  may  be  made  to  the  inscrip- 
tions found  in  houses  in  Damascus,  once  belonging  to 
wealthy  Samaritan  families.  Ten  such  inscriptions  from 
one  house  were  discovered  and  published  by  Sobernheim.20 
More  recently  Musil  has  published,  although  with  ignorance 
of  Sobernheim's  discovery,  seven  similar  inscriptions, 
copies  of  which  were  forwarded  to  him  from  Damascus.21 
These  inscriptions  are  almost  wholly  composed  of  Biblical 
quotations  combined  in  a  very  abbreviated  form,  the  initial 
letter  of  a  word  being  often  all  that  is  given.  From  some 
of  the  texts  they  appear  to  have  been  intended  for  private 
tenements,  and  with  the  purpose  of  fulfilling  the  command 
in  Dt.  6,  8f.  Those  published  by  Sobernheim  are  exe- 
cuted with  great  elegance.  Some  of  these  inscriptions  as 
published  by  Sobernheim  and  Musil  are  reproduced  here 
(Plates  7-12),  including  a  small  bronze  tablet  inscribed 
on  both  sides  (Plate  8). 

In  the  accompanying  Plate  (Plate  13),  the  Samaritan 
alphabet  is  presented  in  variant  forms,  and  also  in  com- 
parison with  selected  types  of  its  forbears  in  the  Phoenician 
alphabet.     In  Columns  II-V,  I  give  various  early  types  of 

18  Clermont-Ganneau,  Archceological  Researches,   1896,  ii,  430. 

19  Published  by  Clermont-Ganneau,  Inscription  samaritame  de  Gaza, 
Revue  biblique,  1906,  p.  84,  with  plate. 

20  Samaritanische   Inschriftcn   aus   Damascus,  MDPV   viii,   70,   with 
plates  of  the  inscriptions,  and  plan  of  the  house. 

21  Sieben  samaritanische  Inschriften  aus  Damaskus,  Vienna,  1903. 


278  THE  SAMARITANS 

related  alphabets,  using  the  nomenclature  of  Lidzbarski,  on 
whose  Tables  I  depend  for  the  forms ;  the  Vth  Column  offers 
a  few  Aramaic  forms  which  are  suggestive  of  certain  Samar- 
itan developments.  In  Cols.  VI-VIII  appear  monumental 
Samaritan  types,  those  respectively  of  the  first  Emmaus  in- 
scription (if  this  may  be  considered  Samaritan),  of  the 
Nablus  inscription  of  the  Ten  Words,  and  of  the  Leeds  in- 
scription, again  with  dependence  upon  Lidzbarski's  repro- 
ductions. In  Cols.  IX-XIII  are  found  Samaritan  man- 
uscriptal  types,  viz. :  No.  IX,  from  the  evidently  early  Tar- 
gum  published  by  Nutt,  the  facsimile  given  by  him  being 
made  use  of ;  No.  X,  the  majuscule  characters  of  the  earlier 
portion  of  Liber  Josnae  (dated  1362)  ;  Col.  XI  is  drawn 
from  Plate  XII  of  Wright's  Oriental  Series,  in  the  publi- 
cations of  the  London  Palaeographical  Society,  being  a 
Biblical  MS  dated  1362;  Cols.  XII  and  XIII  are  cursive 
types,  drawn  from  the  Gotha  MSS,  whose  forms  are  re- 
produced by  Gesenius  in  his  Carmina  Samaritana,  and  from 
the  minuscule  types  of  the  latter  part  of  Liber  Josuae, 
whose  date  is  15 13.  These  cursive  forms  are  of  interest 
as  they  exhibit  some  primitive  and  independent  character- 
istics. The  type  of  Col.  XI  is  most  representative  of  the 
dominating  form  of  Samaritan  chirography.  In  Col.  XIV 
are  given  the  printed  types  used  by  Petermann  (in  free- 
hand reproduction). 

The  Samaritan  alphabet  is  predominantly  of  the  Early 
Hebrew  type,  but  with  some  peculiar  developments.  The 
Cade  has  been  made  to  stand  upright  on  its  legs,  as  is  also 
the  case  with  Yod.  Waw  and  Zayin  have  developed  their 
own  forms,  which  however  can  easily  be  traced  back  to  the 
Early  Hebrew.  Similarity  to  Middle  Phoenician  appears 
in  Yod  and  Qoph.  For  Tet  an  Aramaic  form  is  the  near- 
est equivalent.  Samaritan  has  gone  its  own  way  in  devel- 
oping a  box-like  figure  for  Samek  out  of  the  original  criss- 
cross character,   with   whorls   that   are   lineally   descended 


Plat 

>  13. 

Comparative  Table 

for  1 

heS 

amaritan 

Alphabet 

Hebrew 

Square 

I 

Early  Related  Alphabets 

Monumental  Samaritan 

Samaritan  MSS 

Vultfar 
Printed 
Type 

XIV 

Mesha 

Stone 

Early     Edr|V    Middle 

Phoen   Hebrew   Phoen  Aramaic 

II       III      IV      v 

First 
Emmau 
VI 

Nablus 

"Ten      Leeds 

Words" 

VII    VIII 

Lb  Jos            Gotha    Lib  J05 
Nutts  Ma>se  Bible    MS6   M,nu5c 

Tarjum                  MS 

IX       X       XI     XII    Xlil 

X 

£ 

F* 

> 

** 

^X 

K 

-> 

/X 

/? 

^f- 

A 

m 

3 

65 

39 

s 

a 

9 

3 

B 

S 

^ 

9 

9 

: 

1 

11 

A 

1 

*"\ 

^  *i 

T 

7 

"7 

A 

4^ 

^q 

q 

q 

°( 

^ 

^ 

ST 

^ 

5" 

n 

3 

^ 

^ 

-^ 

^ 

^ 

^f 

^ 

^ 

^ 

7 

) 

y 

f?? 

n 

? 

\ 

// 

X 

^ 

^ 

r 

i 

1 

1 

zx 

X^ 

"£/?7 

^ 

/Q, 

? 

/& 

ft 

-V 

£ 

n 

bi 

0 

ft 

V 

^ 

^ 

^ 

<& 

fr 

^J 

q 

a 

® 

C/D 

*?<7 

V 

<<7 

<> 

^v 

/ 

^ 

^ 

i 

& 

<v 

/77 

rrf 

/?/ 

rrf 

m 

/77 

A? 

'7/ 

/7T 

D 

y 

7J> 

7? 

y 

D 

y 

3 

5 

r? 

* 

> 

ti 

i 

t 

^ 

< 

£ 

z 

<^ 

2 

I 

<? 

<r 

2 

1 

o 

y 

7^ 

7 

3 

iy 

a 

3 

Z> 

3 

r 

^ 

^ 

s 

i 

» 

1 

J) 

a 

i. 

b 

f7 

4Z 

1 

> 

D 

^? 

\ 

^ 

^ 

# 

r 

^» 

$ 

F^ 

y 

o 

oo 

O 

o 

V 

V 

V 

*j 

C7 

u 

S7 

V 

z 

1 

J 

? 

2 

j 

3 

3 

^ 

> 

3 

^ 

r- 

53,* 

V7 

■m 

*n 

~rr> 

rrf 

rtl 

«Tt 

v7T 

p 

? 

f 

Jv 

V 

V 

V 

V 

J 

V 

? 

"i 

1 

4   9 

<\<\ 

s 

q 

R 

A 

^ 

^ 

7 

4 

^ 

w 

w 

vv 

VJ<^ 

U/ 

n 

X 

X 

h 

J.MAI 

x>< 

>< 

A 

<Y 

/v 

n 

/V 

A 

SCRIPT  AND  INSCRIPTIONS  279 

from  early  forms.  The  Early  Hebrew  type  has  apparently 
been  affected  by  Phoenician  influence,  and  also  has  asserted 
its  independence  in  retaining  many  early  characteristics.  It 
is  to  be  noticed  that  the  types  of  the  Nablus  and  Leeds  in- 
scriptions in  part  preserve  the  ancient  inclination  to  the  left, 
in  part  have  attained  a  square,  upright  character;  the  He- 
brew alphabet  is  also  followed  or  imitated  in  the  turning 
of  the  tail  of  several  of  the  characters  square  around  to  the 
left,  i.e.  2>  3>  D.  J»  3  .  The  same  assimilation  between 
characters  has  taken  place  as  in  the  Hebrew  square-letter, 
necessitating  the  use  of  diacritical  lines,  as  for  instance  in 
1  and  "l»  3  and  3.  In  fi  one  of  the  cross-pieces  has 
been  deliberately  broken,  and  its  parts  set  out  of  alignment, 
perhaps  in  artificial  imitation  of  tf  .  In  the  cursive  script 
of  the  MSS  we  find  an  eccentric  development  of  whorls  and 
knots-,  with  neither  beauty  nor  usefulness,  the  result  being 
an  exaggerated  "  Gothic  "  type,  which  has  arisen  from  the 
effort,  paralleled  in  Judaism,  to  produce  a  conventional  ec- 
clesiastical script.  A  slight  carelessness  on  the  part  of  the 
scribes,  often  unskilled  in  the  language  they  copied,  easily 
produces  great  confusion  between  many  pairs  of  letters,  e.g. 
1  and  "l»    H  and  t»  3   and    3-    V  and  p  . 22 

A  great  diversity  in  the  form  of  the  characters  exists  in 
the  MSS.  Unfortunately  the  conventional  European 
printed  type,  which  came  into  vogue  with  the  Polyglots  and 
was  continued  by  Petermann,  has  created  an  outlandish 
style  of  its  own,  being  a  caricature  rejected  by  the  Samari- 
tans themselves.  De  Sacy  considerably  bettered  things  with 
the  type  in  his  edition  of  the  Samaritan  Epistles  in  Notes  et 
Extraits,  and  this  again  has  been  improved  upon  by  the 
fonts  of  the  Journal  asiatique.  The  following  remarks 
by  Euting  may  be  of  interest  for  the  history  of  the  sub- 
iect:  "Die  samaritanischen  Schrifttabellen  bei  Berger,  Is. 
Taylor,  The  Alphabet,  i.   242ft  sind  werthlos,  ebenso  die 

22  See  Lidzbarski,  Handlntch  der  nordsemitischen  Epigraphik,  185. 


280  THE  SAMARITANS 

von  mir  in  Gesenius-Kautzsch  Grammatik,  25.  Auflage. 
Brauchbare  Alphabettabellen  sind  ntir  in  Gesenius  Carmina 
und  in  der  semitischen  Schrifttafel  von  mir,  die  Bickell's 
"  Outlines  of  Hebrew  Grammar  "  (Lpz.  1877)  beigegeben 
war."23 

The  difference  between  the  Samaritan  script  and  the 
Aramaic  type  adopted  by  the  Jews  was  claimed  by  the  Sa- 
maritans as  a  proof  of  their  own  priority,  and  became  a 
serious  subject  of  discussion  in  the  polemics  of  the  two 
sects.  Both  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  speak  of  the 
elder  script  which  the  Samaritans  preserved  as  the  "  He- 
brew script."  The  closeness  of  the  Samaritan  to  the  old 
Hebrew  writing  is  shown  by  an  experience  which  Nach- 
manides,  of  the  XHIth  Century  reports:  "The  Lord 
blessed  me  so  that  I  came  to  Acco,  and  I  found  there  in  the 
hands  of  the  elders  of  the  city  a  silver  coin  engraved  like 
a  seal;  on  the  one  side  there  was  the  like  of  an  almond 
wand,  and  on  the  other  the  like  of  a  flask  (vase).  And 
on  the  margin  of  the  two  sides  there  was  an  engraved  writ- 
ing, very  clear  indeed.  And  they  showed  the  writing  to  the 
Kuthim,  and  they  read  it  at  once,  for  it  was  the  Hebrew 
writing  which  was  left  to  the  Kuthim,  as  it  is  said  in  San- 
hedrin.  And  they  read  on  the  one  side,  'The  shekel  of 
shekels,'  and  on  the  other,  '  Jerusalem  the  holy.'  "24 

How  the  change  of  script  was  effected  in  the  Jewish 
Church  is  explained  in  the  locus  classicus  of  the  Babylonian 
Talmud,  Sanhedrin,  21b:  "Mar  Zutra  (early  in  Vth 
Cent.)— according  to  others  Mar  Ukba  (middle  of  Hid 
Cent), —  said :  At  first  the  law  was  given  to  Israel  in  He- 
brew script  and  in  the  holy  tongue.  It  was  again  given  to 
them  in  the  days  of  Ezra  in  the  Assyrian    (i.e.   Syrian) 

11  J?  h»s  notes,  p.  8,  to  Almkvist,  Ein  samaritanischer  Brief 
24  Quoted  by   Lidzbarski,   op.    cit.   92,   in   the   Hebrew   text  from   de 
Rossi,  Meor  Enatm  (Wilna,  1866),  p.  450.     The  coin  was  a  shekd  of 
"^Su  oTlsiael^  ^«*«°»  of  *e  Averse  is  wrong; 


Plate  9  (Sobernheim,  Abb.  ii.) 

:  pra  :  n :  cm  :  "p»>» :  rxi  :  "prft  :  riK  :  7m 
"  And  he  will  bless  thy  food  and  thy  water  and  will  remove  dis- 
ease from  thy  midst."     (Ex.  23,  25.) 


is^v^^^^io 


'S^SSSSSHJ^S&^m 


iagy  -  gags  5  .-k*  KWgaagssgasssMSgpsggsBjsg^ESg^ 


B^asasa 


Plate  io   (Musil,  II), 

:  *:  3D  :  m  :  »  :  n  :  ^N :  3S 

The  abbreviation  of  the  priestly  blessing,  Num.  6,  24-26,  followed 
by  Amen,  and  the  introduction  to  the  Shema:    "Hear,  Israel." 


:  x  :  rr  *  mr 


Plate  ii  (Musil,  VI). 
From  the  Samaritan-Hebrew  text  of  Dt.  28,  8 


9 


y'f'fyrFt&%<. 


:pi:rr 


K"ip: :  ni.T 

t  i ;  •  t     : 


Plate  12   (Musil,  VII). 

From  the   Samaritan-Hebrew  text   of  Dt.  28,   10,  plus,  at  the  end, 
"K  :  3,  t.  e.,     DIN  1o,  "  all  men." 


SCRIPT  AND  INSCRIPTIONS  281 

script  and  in  the  Aramaic  tongue.  Israel  chose  for  them- 
selves the  Assyrian  script  and  the  holy  tongue,  and  they 
left  to  the  '  Idiots  '  the  Hebrew  script  and  the  Aramaic 
tongue.  Who  are  the  Idiots?  R.  Chasda  (c.  300)  said: 
The  Kuthim.  What  is  the  Hebrew  script?  R.  Chasda 
said,  The  "  libonaa  "  (nWD^  var.    WWW    script."25 

We  need  not  further  pursue  the  Jewish  traditions  ex- 
cept so  far  as  they  characterize  the  differences  between  the 
two  scripts.  In  the  passage  quoted  above  the  Rabbis  called 
the  Samaritan  script  "  Libonaean."  Another  description  is 
given  in  the  passages  referred  to  above,  by  a  word  variously 
vocalized,  viz.  ra'ac,  ro'ac,  ra'uc,,  while  the  Aruch  gives  the 
variant  da'ac.  The  root  J*J?1  signifies  "  to  break "  and 
would  capitally  characterize  the  "  splinter-like,"  angular 
style  of  the  earlier  script;  this  may  be  the  sense  of  the 
passive  formations  ra'uc,  and  ro'ac,  the  term  subsequently 
coming  to  be  interpreted  in  malo  scnsu, — "  when  they 
sinned  it  was  changed  into  breaking,"  even  as  D'HIt^N, 
"  Assyrian,"  was  interpreted  in  bono  scnsu,  as  "  blessed," 
IttHKD .  The  root  of  the  variant  ^JH  means  "  to  prick," 
and  might  be  used  of  the  work  of  an  iron  stylus  operated 
upon  stone. 

As  to  the  choice  between  the  two  roots  PJH  and  fV*l » 
a  Patristic  passage  adduced  by  Hoffmann  appears  to  cast 
the  die,26  viz :  Hie  igitur  Esdras  [i.e.  the  assumed  Ezra 
who  brought  the  Law  to  the  Samaritans]   quern  diximus, 

25  The  same  story  appears  in  Megil.  Jet:  i,  71b;  Sota  Jer.  vii,  21c. 
One  opinion  was  that  the  Law  itself  was  given  in  the  Syrian  script, 
so  greatly  were  the  Rabbis  concerned  over  their  form  of  the  text. 
The  patristic  writers  have  the  same  tradition :  Origen,  ed.  Migne,  xii, 
col.  1 104 ;  Jerome,  Prol.  galeat.,  M.  xxviii,  593 ;  on  Esek.  9,  4,  M.  xxv, 
88  (noticing  the  antique  cruciform  Taw  of  the  Samaritans)  ;  Epipha- 
nius,  De  XII  gemmis,  §  63,  M.  xliii,  356  (to  be  quoted  below).  Bux- 
torf  (Diss,  de  litt.  Heb.  antiq.)  has  collected  later  Jewish  traditions  to 
the  effect  that  the  Samaritan  Law  and  script  were  obtained  through  the 
Jewish  priests  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria. 

26  Epiphanius,  De  XII  gemmis,  §  63,  Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  xliii,  356 
(existing  only  in  a  Latin  version). 


282  THE  SAMARITANS 

ascendens  Hierosolymam,  Pentateuchum  tantummodo,  id 
est  quinque  libros  Moysi,  detulit  eis  Veteris  Testamenti 
libros  scriptos  secundum  formam  quam  dedit  Dominus  in 
monte  Sina;  quam  formam  Hebraei  deession  [var.  dession] 
vocant,  quod  interpretatur  insculptum;  nunc  enim  non 
eadem  sunt  elementa  litterarum  quibus  Hebraei  utuntur, 
librique  eorum  non  sunt  scripti  iuxta  veterem  formam,  quae 
tunc  in  tabulis  lapideis  constat  insculpta.  Haec  igitur  for- 
ma, quam  nunc  tenent  Iudaei,  vocatur  Somahirenus.  Sa- 
maritani  servant  dessenon  quae  forma  fuit  olim,  ut  diximus, 
in  tabulis  impressa  lapideis.  At  Esdra  [the  Jewish  Ezra] 
ascendens  a  Babylone,  volensque  discernere  Israel  a  re- 
liquis  gentibus,  ut  genus  Abrahae  non  videretur  esse  per- 
mixtum  cum  habitatoribus  terrae,  qui  tenent  quidem  Legem, 
non  tamen  et  Prophetas,  immutavit  pristinam  formam  re- 
linquens  deessenon,  propter  quod  ea  forma  a  Samaritanis 
prseoccupata  iam  fuerat,  ut  per  hoc  Abrahae  semen  dis- 
tingueretur  a  nationibus  reliquis. 

Hoffmann  would  read  deessenon  in  all  three  instances, 
understanding  the  last  two  syllables  as  a  Greek  adjectival 
ending,  --qv°v,  equivalent  to  -wov.  The  first  two  syllables 
then  would  represent  the  Talmudic  variant  da'aq.  Ac- 
cordingly this  independent  Greek  authority  corroborates  the 
less  attested  Rabbinic  reading,  and  must  be  allowed  to  de- 
cide the  question  between  the  two.  The  da'aq  character  is 
then  the  ancient  chiselled  type,  as  distinguished  from  the 
flowing  cursive  of  the  Hebrew  square  character.  The  more 
common  variant  raac  arose  through  an  easy  confusion  of 
letters,  and  may  have  been  preferred  because  of  the  asper- 
sion which  it  suggested  against  the  Samaritan  script. 

Upon  the  adjective  "  Libonaean,"  the  final  word  has  not 
yet  been  spoken.  It  has  been  explained  by  Geiger  as  "  the 
well-balanced  form  of  writing,"  but,  as  Hoffmann  remarks, 
this  would  apply  far  more  pertinently  to  the  Hebrew  square 
character.     The  form  is  apparently  gentilic,  and  hence  it 


SCRIPT  AND  INSCRIPTIONS  283 

has  been  explained  as  "  Libanian,"  i.e.  of  Lebanon,  or  as 
representing  the  Ephraimitish  town  Lebona,  the  modern 
Lubban, —  so  Hoffmann,  who  suggests  that  this  may  have 
been  the  seat  of  a  Samaritan  school.  Most  recently,  and 
very  reasonably,  Halevy  has  argued  that  it  is  a  corruption 
for  »"IKI7'D\3    "  Neapolitan,"   i.e.  of   Shechem-Neapolis.27 

In  Tanchuma  (Wayyesheb,  §  2),  and  Pirke  Eliczer,  c. 
38,  sub  fin.,  the  ancient  script  preserved  by  the  Samaritans 
is  called  pp'HftlJ,  i.e.  notaricum,  a  notary's  or  stenog- 
rapher's script.  The  earlier  alphabet  was  much  better  fit- 
ted for  rapid  writing  than  the  square  character,  and  may 
have  survived  in  business  use  comparatively  late. 

Finally  there  may  be  noted  here  the  bit  of  Jewish  humor 
over  the  enclosed  form  of  the  antique  Ayin :  "  If  anyone 
says  the  Law  was  given  in  ra'ag,  the  letter  Ayin  was  a  mir- 
acle "  —  on  the  basis  of  the  legend  that  the  writing  of  the 
Law  on  both  sides  of  the  tables  of  stone  meant  that  the 
letters  were  cut  through  the  tables,  in  which  case  the  core 
of  the  round  or  triangular  Ayin  would  have  been  wholly 
detached  from  the  rest  of  the  stone.28 

§    5.       THE  SAMARITAN   HELLENISTIC  LITERATURE. 

With  the  spread  of  Hellenism  over  the  Orient  the  Greek 
became,  and  remained  for  nearly  a  millennium,  a  second 
language  in  the  mouth  of  the  Samaritans.  It  was  used 
by  them  as  by  the  Jews  not  only  for  international  inter- 
course, but  also  as  a  literary  vehicle  for  placing  them- 
selves in  a  dignified  historical  and  literary  light  before  the 

27  For  an  excellent  apparatus  of  references  to  the  terms  discussed 
above,  see  Jastrow,  Dictionary,  s.  vv.,  and,  for  extensive  quotation  from 
Rabbinic  sources,  Lightfoot,  on  Mt.  5,  18.  For  discussions  of  the 
terms,  see  Hupfeld,  Beleuchtung  dunkler  Stellen  alttest.  Textge- 
schichte,  in  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  i  (1830),  especially 
p.  28gff;  G.  Hoffman,  Lexicalisches,  ZATW  i  (1881),  p.  334;  ">  53: 
Geiger,  JZW  v,  115;  Halevy,  Melanges  dc  critique  et  d'histoire,  1883, 
No.  xv. 

28  Megil.  Jer.  71c. 


284  THE  SAMARITANS 

eyes  of  Greek  culture,  and  also  doubtless  as  a  means  of 
polemic  against  the  Jews ;  this  must  have  been  the  case 
especially  in  Egypt.  Samaria  with  its  thoroughly  Pagan 
capital  Sebaste  and  through  its  physical  openness  to  for- 
eign influences,  doubtless  even  more  than  Judaea  accommo- 
dated itself  to  the  use  of  the  new  tongue. 

Only  scanty  fragments  and  references  throw  light  upon 
the  Hellenistic  literature  of  the  Samaritans.  The  few 
historical  excerpts  have  been  preserved  by  Joseplius,  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  and  especially  by  Eusebius ;  they  all  hail 
from  the  historical  work  Concerning  the  Jews,  composed 
by  Alexander  Polyhistor,  a  Roman  historian  who  flourished 
about  50  B.  C.28a  Of  one  of  these  authorities  of  Alex- 
ander, Eupolemus,  Eusebius  has  preserved  extensive  ex- 
tracts (Praep.  evang.  ix,  17,  18,  26,  30-34,  39).  Of 
these,  sections  17  and  18  give  a  Midrash  on  Abraham's 
life,  in  which  Gerizim  appears  as  opos  vipiarov,  "  the 
Mount  of  the  Most  High."  Hence  it  has  been  argued  that 
Eupolemus  was  a  Samaritan.  But  as  the  other  fragments 
are  distinctly  Jewish,  while  Eupolemus  may  be  identified 
with  Judas  Maccabee's  ambassador  to  Rome  ( 1  Mac.  8, 
17;  2  Mac.  4,  11),  it  is  more  reasonable  to  hold  with  Freu- 
denthal  and  Schurer  that  sections  17  and  18  are  from  the 
hand  of  an  unknown  Samaritan  writer.29  Freudenthal  also 
thinks  that  the  Cleodemus-Malchus,  quoted  by  Josephus 
(AJ  \,  15),  and  from  him  by  Eusebius  (Praep.  evang.  ix, 
20),  was  a  Samaritan;  but  as  Schurer  judges,  the  passage 
could  easily  hail  from  a  Jewish  hand.30 

Fragments  amounting  to  47  hexameter  lines  have  been 
preserved  by  Eusebius  from  an  epic  poem  in  Homeric  style 
composed  by  a  certain  Theodotus,  who,  because  of  his  de- 

28a  Schiirer,  GJV  iii,  346. 

29  GJV  iii,  351,  358,  and  there  the  literature.  The  texts  of  these 
Samaritan  historians  may  be  found  in  C.  Miiller,  Frag.  hist.  Grrc.  iii, 
207  seqq. 

30  GJV  iii,  357- 


HELLENISTIC  LITERATURE  285 

scription  of  the  beauty  and  sacredness  of  Shechem,  which 
he  calls  "  sacred  city,"  has  generally  been  assumed  to  be  a 
Samaritan.31 

Of  interest  to  textual  criticism  is  the  question  whether 
a  Samaritan  Greek  version  of  the  Pentateuch  ever  ex- 
isted, the  query  being  prompted  by  Origen's  references  in 
his  Hexapla  to  ™  ^ajxapeniKov.  This  is  generally  under- 
stood by  critics  as  referring  to  the  Samaritan  Hebrew 
Pentateuch,  which,  however,  is  also  termed  to  twv  2a^.a- 
peiTflv  'EfipaiKov.  But  Kohn  especially  has  argued  for  the 
existence  of  an  independent  Greek  version,  on  the  ground 
of  the  correspondence  of  the  readings  reported  by  Origen 
with  the  Samaritan  Targum.32 

Outside  of  our  sect  Samaritan  Hellenism  produced  some 
notable  men.  Justin  Martyr  was  a  native  of  Neapolis. 
According  to  Epiphanius,  Symmachus,  one  of  the  Greek 
translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  a  Samaritan,  who, 
accepting  Jewish  circumcision,  made  his  version  in  an- 
tagonism to  those  current  among  the  Samaritans;  but  Eu- 
sebius  and  Jerome  know  of  him  only  as  an  Ebionite.33 
The  philosopher  Marinus,  who  succeeded  the  Neo-Platon- 
ist  Proclus  at  Athens  in  485,  came  from  Neapolis,  as  Da- 

31  The  fragments  are  preserved  by  Eusebius,  Prcep.  evang.  ix,  22 ; 
see  Schiirer,  GJV  Hi,  372,  and  add  to  the  bibliography  there,  Ludwich, 
De  Theodoti  carmine  Grccco-Iudaico  commentatio,  Konigsberg,  1899  (a 
university  programme),  giving  a  revised  text.  Ludwich  is  not  inclined 
to  think  that  the  poem  comes  from  a  Samaritan  hand ;  Eusebius  says 
that  Theodotus's  work  was  "  Concerning  the  Jews."  Ewald,  History 
of  Israel,  v,  262,  argues  that  Sibylline  Oracles,  xi,  239-242,  is  of  Sa- 
maritan origin.     For  extract  from  Theodotus,  see  above,  p.  13. 

32  For  the  references  to  the  Samaritikon,  see  Field,  Origenis  Hexapla, 
i,  p.  lxxxii ;  there  are  43  such  references,  and  four  more  probably  from 
the  same  source.  For  Kohn's  views,  see  his  De  Pentatencho  Samari- 
tano,  1865 ;  Samareitikon  und  Scptuaginta,  in  Monatsschrift  fur  Ge- 
sehichte  u.  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums,  1893,  pp.  1,  49;  cf.  ZDMG 
xlvii  (1893),  650.  Konig  approves  Kohn's  position,  DB  extra  vol.  71. 
Against  Kohn,  see  Geiger,  ZDMG  xix,  611. 

33  Epiphanius,  De  mens,  et  pond.  §  15;  see  Swete,  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament  in  Greek,  49.  For  a  Samaritan  reference  to  Sym- 
machus, see  Chap.  V,  note  10. 


286  THE  SAMARITANS 

mascius  records,  quoting  the  philosopher  as  speaking  of 
Mount  Gerizim,  on  which  "  there  was  a  most  holy  temple 
of  Highest  Zeus,  and  there  Abraham,  the  first  of  the  an- 
cient Jews,  was  consecrated."34  Also  the  sophist  Siricius 
hailed  from  Samaria.35 

§    6.       THE  SAMARITAN    HEBREW   PENTATEUCH. 

Probably  the  greatest  stimulus  ever  given  to  the  textual 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  discovery,  early  in 
the  XVIIth  Century,  of  the  existence  of  codices  of  the  He- 
brew Pentateuch,  belonging  to  the  Samaritans  and  written 
in  their  peculiar  script,  and  in  antiquity  vying  with  or  ex- 
celling the  Jewish  manuscripts;  furthermore  they  pre- 
sented a  distinctly  different  text. 

The  possession  by  the  Samaritans  of  the  Law  of  Moses 
is  throughout  assumed  and  acknowledged  by  the  Talmud 
and  early  Jewish  writers,  although  these  authorities  claimed 
that  the  Samaritan  Law  contained  forgeries,  the  most  im- 
portant of  which  references  have  been  cited  in  Chapter  X. 
The  Patristic  writers  likewise  had  cognizance  of  the  Sa- 
maritan text,  and  the  early  Christian  critics  from  Origen 
down  make  frequent  reference  to  it,  using  it  without  preju- 
dice for  the  Jewish  text,  the  latest  Greek  reference  to  it 
being  found  in  George  Syncellus  (c.  800). 36  Then  with 
the  decay  of  learning,  all  remembrance  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  faded  away,  the  Jews  who  could  best  have  pre- 
served the  tradition  being  doubtless  glad  to  ignore  it. 

But  in  161 6  Pietro  della  Valle,  in  his  oriental  journey, 
purchased  a  copy  of  this  unknown  text  from  Samaritans 
at  Damascus,  and  forwarded  it  to  Europe,  where  it  came 

34  Damascius,  in  Photius,  Bibliotheca,  1055. 

35  Reland,  Palcestina,   1005. 

36  Origen,  Hexapla,  ad  Num.  13,  1;  Jerome,  Prol.  gal.;  on  Gal.  3,  10; 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  (adduced  by  Migne  to  latter  passage  of  Jerome)  ; 
George  Syncellus,  Chronograplua,  83  (ed.  Bonn,  p.  156):  "the  He- 
brews acknowledge  it  to  be  the  earliest"   (cf.  the  same,  p.  166). 


Pal.  Ex.   Fund. 


The  Sacred  Pentateuch  Codex 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH  287 

into  the  possession  of  the  library  of  the  Oratorians  at  Paris. 
Its  publication  however  was  long  deferred,  until  at  last  it 
appeared,  very  badly  edited,  under  the  hand  of  Morinus, 
in  the  Paris  Polyglot  (1645).  It  was  published  again  in 
the  London  Polyglot  (1657)  by  Walton,  "only  the  most 
glaring  typographical  blunders  having  been  corrected,  but 
a  much  more  complete  and  exact  list  of  variations  was  ap- 
pended, the  Latin  version  to  some  extent  amended,  and  the 
deviations  of  the  Targum  from  the  Pentateuch  noted."37 
Forthwith  this  text  entered  into  all  discussions.  Kennicott 
carefully  noted  the  variants  of  the  Samaritan  MSS  in  his 
great  apparatus  to  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Strangely  enough 
no  satisfactory  edition  of  this  text  has  as  yet  been  pub- 
lished, although  two  are  now  promised.38 

The  codices  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  European 
libraries  have  very  much  increased  over  the  sixteen  copies 
known  to  Kennicott,  and  some  are  to  be  found  in  private 
hands  in  America.  But  the  codex  that  excites  the  greatest 
interest  is  the  sacrosanct  text  preserved  by  the  Samaritans 
as  the  palladium  of  their  religion.  It  claims  to  have  been 
written  by  the  great-grandson  of  Aaron,  as  is  set  forth  in 
the  Tarikh  between  the  columns  of  Dt.  5,  6ff,  as  follows: 
"  I  Abishua,  son  of  Phineas,  son  of  Eleazar,  son  of  Aaron, 
—  may  Yhwh's  favor  and  glory  be  theirs  —  wrote  the  holy 
book  in  the  gate  of  the  tabernacle  on  Mount  Gerizim  in 
the  13th  year  after  that  the  Israelites  ruled  the  land  of 
Canaan  in  its  borders  round  about.  I  make  known 
Yhwh."  The  claim  is  preposterous,  but  how  old  the 
copy  is,  has  not  been  ascertained,  as  so  far  it  has  been  im- 

37  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.  103. 

38  The  text  appears  in  Blayney.  Pentateuchus  Samaritanus,  1790; 
Lee,  Biblia  sacra  polyglotta,  1831,  et  seq.  A  new  edition  is  projected 
by  the  (English)  Text  and  Translation  Society,  under  the  editorship 
of  Ginsburg;  and  another  by  v.  Gall, —  see  his  prospectus,  ZATW  1906, 
p.  293.     For  the  MSS  in  Europe,  see  BS  i,  p.  xix,  and  v.  Gall,  /.  c. 


288  THE  SAMARITANS 

possible    for    scholars    to   make    a    thorough    examination 
of  it.39 

The  publication  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  at  once 
kindled  a  great  strife  in  European  theological  circles.  The 
Protestants  and  Catholics  were  already  arrayed  against 
each  other  over  the  question  of  the  authentic  text  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  former  going  almost  to  the  Jewish  extreme 
in  upholding  the  authority  of  the  Massoretic  text,  the  lat- 
ter taking  every  occasion  to  discredit  it  to  the  advantage 
of  their  ecclesiastically  approved  versions,  the  Vulgate  and 
Septuagint.  Capellus,  who  had  already  taken  positions 
against  the  Massoretic  text,  proved  that  the  Samaritan 
script  was  older  than  the  Hebrew.  Morinus,  the  French 
Oratorian,  who  edited  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  for  the 
Paris  Polyglot,  warmly  espoused  its  text,  bringing  down 
upon  himself  the  severe  opposition  of  de  Muis  and  Hot- 
tinger.  In  the  middle  of  the  next  century  the  Catholic 
Houbigant  was  met  by  the  Protestant  Ravius,  and  Poncet 
by  Michaelis ;  the  great  English  scholar  Kennicott  was 
warmly  inclined  to  the  Samaritan  readings.  Finally  Gesen- 
ius  took  up  the  question  in  an  entirely  dispassionate  way, 
and  carefully  analyzed  all  the  variations  between  the  two 
rival  texts ;  he  believed  he  could  reduce  the  valid  important 
variants  to  a  very  small  number,  four  in  fact  (Gen.  4,  6;  14, 
14;  22,  13;  49,  14).  The  argument  has  never  since  been 
taken  up  in  such  extensive  detail,  students  of  the  Pentateuch 

39  This  Tarikh  is  frequently  quoted  by  the  Samaritan  literature;  e.g. 
N.  et  E.  169,  (179)  ;  DVJ  i,  99.  For  an  account  of  the  codex,  first 
seen  and  described  by  Huntington,  see  Rosen,  Altc  Handschriften  des 
samaritanischen  Pentateuchs,  ZDMG  xviii,  582  (with  plates),  on  the 
authority  of  two  visitors  to  Nablus,  Levisohn  and  Kraus,  who  were 
so  fortunate  as  to  obtain  a  good  view  of  the  ancient  codex  and  to  ac- 
quire a  rough  tracing.  A  photograph  of  a  part  has  also  been  secured 
by  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund.  Also  see  Mills,  Nablus,  308.  A 
high  antiquity  is  claimed  for  many  other  MSS  ;  see  Rosen,  /.  c;  but 
this  is  often  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  cryptogramic  way  of 
writing  the  date;  see  Cowley,  PEFQS  1904,  p.  344;  JQR  1904,  p.  483; 
Gottheil,  in  JBL,  1906,  p.  29. 


r'tt    t>T     h    h*f     +<**'&?*,       'H  s&      n,    AT* 


-^       A  ^    \>Kr-Bg3K>jL-ts    ><-d~  '4*A!&A* 

g^tf      A  A"-S        t5  A  ^3       'tjyrr  ^      /*    _Aw; 
*t7  Af  ZJ  47  A«     .&/*  "^  zfZfP' 

^>a     •*>  Afr»  ^-d'A AS  *3AA      c/^rpA  /^A^A^'-* 

*J  ^    *r      b**-ew£**A/*  ,    A-'.^c 

^     -^V^  -**£T  ^tA  **£j  A        <^Ap<X  6^~- « 
W  iff  *><•*-*<«<$**<  A    AV*    £J    /?    ^^H>     *xs*.*3Mt 

^<  *tf  A.V-  /VA^  >3?A43A>  <*  ,6^°C~<^ 


A  Page  of  Watson  Codex  II. 
Containing   the    Samaritan-Hebrew    of   Df.    2.    220-32.     This    MS 
claims  the  date  35  of  the  Hegira. 

Through   courtesy   of   the    owner,    the    Rev.    W.    Scott    Watson    of    West   New 
York,   N.  J.     (See  Bibliography.) 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH  289 

since  Gesenius  spending  their  energies  empirically  upon  the 
separate  readings.  It  must  be  said  that  present  scholarship 
is  inclined  to  give  far  greater  credence  to  the  Samaritan 
than  Gesenius  allowed,  and  to  make  its  testimony  weigh 
very  heavily  when  in  agreement  with  other  versions,  espe- 
cially the  Greek.40 

As  to  the  relation  of  the  Samaritan  to  the  Massoretic,  and 
its  origin,  the  most  different  views  have  been  held,  varying 
all  the  way  from  the  extreme  Catholic  position  that  the 
Samaritan  was  to  be  preferred  to  that  which  would  make  it 
dependent  upon  the  Septuagint.  All  mysteries  and  the- 
ological preposessions  aside,  the  simplest  hypothesis  is  that 
the  Samaritan  represents  an  actual  early  form  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  text.  When  we  recall  that  the  orthodox  Jews  of 
Alexandria  produced  a  translation  that  varies  from  our 
present  Massoretic  text,  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  the 
heterodox  Samaritans,  who  long  before  the  origin  of  the 
Septuagint  possessed  their  own  textual  tradition,  have  pre- 
served a  variant  text.  Indeed  it  is  not  the  disagreement 
that  is  remarkable  so  much  as  the  great  similarity  of  the 
two  texts.  Apart  from  the  few  falsifications  inserted  by 
the  Samaritans,  there  are  no  material  differences,  such  for 
instance  as  would  give  the  historian  a  different  view  of  the 

40  For  a  review  of  the  earlier  discussions,  see  Wolf,  Bibliotheca 
Hebraica  (1721),  iii,  421.  Nutt  op.  cit.  86,  gives  a  lively  account,  with 
dependence  upon  G.  W.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Schrifterkl'drung,  1804.  Of 
the  earlier  works  we  may  notice,  Morinus,  Exercitationes  ecclesiastics 
in  utrumque  Samantanorum  Pentateuchum,  1631 ;  Hottinger,  Exercita- 
tiones anti-Moriniantr,  1644;  Capellus,  Diatriba  de  vcris  ct  antiquis 
Hebrceorum  Uteris,  1645;  Critica  sacra,  iii,  c.  20;  Walton,  Prolegomenon 
xi,  to  London  Polyglot;  Simon,  Histoirc  critique  du  Vieux  Testament, 
i,  c.  12;  Kennicott,  Dissertation  the  Second.  Gesenius'  work  is  entitled 
De  Pentatcuchi  Samaritani  origine,  etc.,  1815.  Frankel,  EinAuss  der 
palastincnsichcn  Exegese,  237,  takes  a  still  more  severe  position  than 
Gesenius.  Further,  see  Kohn,  De  Pentatcucho  Samaritano,  and  most 
recently  Konig  in  DB,  extra  vol.  s.  v.  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  Eich- 
horn.  Einlcitung  in  das  alte  Testament,  §§  378-390  (ed.  4)  contains  an 
excellent  apparatus  of  material,  and  Ezra  Abbot  in  his  article  in 
Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  presents  an  extensive  synopsis  of  Samaritan 
variants. 
19 


290  THE  SAMARITANS 

age  to  which  the  composition  belongs,  or  of  the  history 
which  it  relates;  the  variations  will  never  be  more  than  of 
interest  to  the  textual  scholar,  illustrative  to  him  of  the 
origin  and  processes  of  various  text-traditions.41 

§    7.       THE  TARGUM. 

Samaritanism,  like  the  sister  sect,  felt  the  need  of  ren- 
dering its  Bible  into  the  Aramaic  vernacular,  and  there 
arose  a  Targumic  literature,  which  remains  as  the  most 
interesting  monument  of  the  Samaritan  dialect.  But  the 
Targumic  text  exhibits  such  gross  blunders  of  translation, 
and  has  so  frightfully  suffered  through  transmission  at  the 
hands  of  uneducated  scribes  ignorant  of  the  language,  that 
it  has  been  the  puzzle  of  scholars  ever  since  its  existence  was 
made  known  to  the  western  world.  To  this  day  no  satis- 
factory edition  of  the  Targum  exists. 

The  first  MS  to  come  into  the  hands  of  a  European  was 
that  now  in  the  Vatican  library,  which  was  purchased  by 
Pietro  della  Valle  along  with  copies  of  the  Hebrew  Penta- 
teuch; it  has  the  date  15 14.  A  much  earlier  text  is  the 
Barberini  Triglot,  presented  to  Cardinal  Barberini  by  de 
Peiresc,  who  bought  it  at  Damascus  in  163 1,  and  it  is  still 
to  be  found  in  the  Barberini  library.  The  bulk  of  the 
MS  is  dated  1227;  the  last  portion,  from  Dt.  11,  29,  hails 
from  the  year  1476.  Numerous  Targumic  fragments  are 
also  to  be  found  in  European  libraries,  some  of  which 
may  be  of  earlier  date  than  the  MSS  described. 

The  della  Valle  MS  was  used  in  the  Paris  and  London 
Polyglots,  undergoing  some  emendations  in  the  latter. 
This  has  remained  the  only  published  text  until  our  own 
times.  Petermann,  whose  work  was  completed  by  Vollers, 
has  now  published  a  sumptuous  edition  of  the  Targum  upon 

41  For  the  bearing  of  the  Samaritan   Pentateuch  upon  the  question 
of  the  date  of  the  Samaritan  schism,  see  above,  p.  73. 


i„  T         W^a  -a*<i3.»<- ■"* 

ft**-?*^*.  ■ifavt*/*'  <*c*v«-  a 

By  a^gj^o;  sri-w2 JtrWH 

« c    *\a     ant/***    >£*"  t 

vl  f9&i*n.'v*,'x/>r  aw**- 
'  1       Asa^  •,£/*•■*     a*"  ** 


itxvca  ***;/»  iyit^  5**«ta*?"*/«- 1 

■£*t     «wva-^     w^t-4**-"!?  a 

a  /»  Sf-Jyrfftt-fn'W^-rt-v  a 

hfr^K-rS.   &/wim  -rrjc^f./^  j 

•Wist-  tf3  ao;<Mp  ixa&it 
a/o  3*<-  --ff^ifg  -zfr***?  ^ 

:  W    Ax-  */*?*■'  a/*-**"**/*  <•« 

a-sf  £?-*»  ir»?e^a  -a*»»»  ■»»'*/?■ 

■W?A  /*-"4x  A/*->7"«  Va    "?  « 

va  •£*n&x&i* •« hi.-***- « 
fzr^o  iifo-a  '  *w<x&^f-  ■""}  <**■ 
«waa«^  if-zwa  «FW  ii  /* 
.x-a  apa^vva 


«    Aa        tvirrt^s   ■*.•&&,  a 
■a-X-sy**  ijT.vAv  -rv&fAS*"*  & 

-S*  w«  a^a«  3a?^s«a'  s» 


-=$> 


«(«| 


"*JVfr/j?*Z    rne^Q/+J+ "> 


3»<  <s<7'/  ai^></j?  cftn-cx^ff ' 

»^c  ryffrK-»?~?i.  Wife*  ■&ft-*?S*' 

nth,  &      ■z'.'f-fst.  *v*>As+ 

&JK-&SWa''>rf*£ift.  'eASWflL 

^fvoor  a<ws>r*  sr-v/a^  «* 

«/r  a«  •**S*-'*       <^z*iBZ0 


^»-*  *•*■  -^/^  ^v^a  ££&&■/#  *a? 

• »  a  ?»»~o.»  ■*«  a^"^  ^ 

"  ***  *«     A*  ^V!4arti>f  t. 

zfi  ;a/>fcs^c7j3l'*^rt7vv^f^ 

a^/*-    -<wa  *sa/*-.a-wv<i_a 

-iRA'      W*         £v£aroaff-a, 

<«o  <w  ottf+wt  a—  T 
a-*  A/ji  "^sw-^-a^Xar"-2/* 
a-^f  -4^-  «z^a  a-»-Q'<"<-«< 
a*v     iua-^    -ttmetsnti  ttic^n, 

vt?t^         /fA  JgiJWil^  '/fits*. 

a*/«-  '<    •a«a/«-A,/<-B'"«<'» 

-v<7  ^^  'itf/fr*?  a—  ^ 
-^-sf  -«j  <^ ".£/<>■  x«i ~afa. 
-%il       s-n   'ire**-  -a/fa-  >*. 

rt£,a2-  n.<9.tZ.?T°'9'*    ■***?&>  I*- 

,v.«^  o.vv"2»  a^v?>w<    «*^a  a 

/>?  ii     "■>»»«•■«»»     if?*"*' 

v£  --  ■»?'    aw    •«**>&*'* 

«5^^  ■iljVoAf*.-'<ro*>  ■*£"■ 
K.l  ^  v*r«^~  "*  * 

<>»  a  a^W /**""'**  i«c«\a 'Ai'z* 

-,  2»    «-"  ^ — ^""**  !  ','CTO>  a 


4t; 


Page  of  the  Barberini  Triglot  (a.  d.  1227.) 

Gen.   47,    ib— ua   in    Hebrew,    Arabic,   Aramaic    (from    right   to 
left    respectively).     From    Oriental  Series,    Plate   lxxxix   of   Palsso- 

graphical  Society's  Facsimiles. 


THE  TARGUM  291 

the  basis  of  MSS  obtained  by  him  at  Nablus,  collated  with 
the  Polyglot  texts.  But  this  edition  suffers  through  arbi- 
trary editing  and  the  lack  of  any  critical  description  of  the 
MSS  used.  Heidenheim  has  more  recently  put  forth  an 
edition  of  Genesis,  collating  for  this  purpose,  for  the  first 
time,  the  Barberini  Triglot,  which,  however,  does  not  come 
to  assistance  until  Gen.  34,  25. 42 

Since  the  day  of  the  great  lexicographer  Castellus  the 
Targum  has  been  the  basis  of  the  wildest  theories  concern- 
ing the  lexical  nature  of  the  Samaritan  dialect,  theories 
which  have  their  excuse  when  we  take  into  account  the  tra- 
ditions concerning  the  origin  of  the  Samaritans  and  also 
the  horrible  condition  of  the  texts.  All  strange  words  were 
regarded  as  "  Kuthasan  roots,"  and  they  were  explained 
from  every  language  under  the  sun,  not  only  Persian  and 
Coptic,  but  also  from  Welsh  in  the  west  to  Annamese  in  the 

42  For  the  Barberini  MS,  see  de  Peiresc  in  Antiquitates  ecclesice 
orientalis,  London,  1682,  Ep.  xxxvi,  179.  It  is  described  by  Hwiid, 
Specimen    inedita    versionis    Arabico-Samaritana    Pentateuchi,    Rome, 

1780;  de  Rossi,  Specimen  varr.  lectionum Appendix  de  celeberrimo 

Samaritano  tritaplo,  Rome,  1782;  de  Sacy,  in  Mcmoires  de  I'  Academie 
des  Inscriptions,  xlix,  3 ;  and  by  others  —  see  Heidenheim,  introduction 
to  BS  i.  A  page,  Gen.  47,  11,  has  been  beautifully  reproduced  in  the 
Palaeographical  Society's  Facsimiles  of  Manuscripts,  etc.,  in  the  vol. 
Oriental  Series,  edited  by  W.  Wright,  London,  1875,  Plate  lxxxix. 
(The  same  volume  contains  two  other  plates  of  Samaritan  MSS: 
Nos.  xii  and  xxviii.)  The  Barberini  Triglot  contains  the  Hebrew, 
Arabic,  and  Targum,  in  parallel  columns,  all  in  Samaritan  script.  The 
Vatican  MS  is  described  by  Assemani,  Bibliothecce  Vaticance  catalogus, 
i,  1,  p.  464.  The  published  editions  of  the  Targum,  or  fragments, 
apart  from  the  Polyglots  (in  the  Paris  Polyglot  by  Morinus,  in  the 
London  Polyglot  by  Castellus)  are:  Petermann-Vollers,  Pentateuchus 
Samaritanus  (a  misleading  name!),  Berlin,  1872-1891 ;  Nutt,  Frag- 
ments of  a  Samaritan  Targum,  1874  (with  facsimile)  ;  Briill,  Das 
samaritanische  Targum,  1875;  Kohn,  Die  Petersburger  Fragmente  des 
samaritanischcn  Targum,  1876;  Heidenheim,  Die  samaritanische  Pen- 
tateuch-Version: Die  Genesis,  1884,  in  BS  i  (cf.  Kohn,  Zur  neuesten 
Litteratur  iiber  die  Samaritaner,  ZDMG  xxxix,  165)  ;  Kahle,  Frag- 
mente des  samaritanischen  Pentateuchtargums,  1902.  For  criticism 
of  the  Petermann  edition,  see  especially  Kohn,  Zur  Spraclie,  part  ii.; 
and  his  review  of  the  whole  work  in  ZDMG  xlvii  (1893),  626;  and 
in  general  see  Kahle,  Textcritische  und  lexicalische  Bcmerkungen,  1S98. 
For  an  admirable  presentation  of  the  facts,  see  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.   107. 


292  THE  S'AMARITANS 

east!  It  has  been  the  merit  particularly  of  Kohn  to  break 
down  these  philological  absurdities  and  at  the  same  time 
to  help  demolish  the  historical  tradition.43  This  scholar 
has  reduced  the  number  of  obscurities  to  a  minimum,  which 
he  thinks  may  be  safely  assigned  to  text  corruptions.  He 
has  very  fully  treated  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the 
Targum  to  the  Septuagint,  to  Onkelos,  and  to  Abu  Said, 
or  his  predecessors,  from  the  Xlth  Century  on,  for  there 
are  correspondences  with  the  Greek,  Rabbinic,  and  Arabic 
versions.  For  the  Greek  connection,  we  find  the  presence 
of  many  Greek  words;  the  dependence  upon  Onkelos  has 
been  supported  or  considered  likely  by  scholars  from  Hot- 
tinger  down  to  Noldeke,  while  Frankel  has  even  maintained 
an  origin  in  the  age  of  Islam.44  But  Kohn  explains  all 
these  later  correspondences  upon  the  theory  of  glosses  and 
interpolations  entering  the  text  at  the  hand  of  wilful  or 
ignorant  scribes,  the  Targum  having  undergone  constant 
revision,  until  it  fell  into  desuetude.  Its  history  then  would 
be  parallel  to  that  of  the  Jewish  Targums. 

As  for  the  age  of  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  Targum 
we  may  hold  that  it  was  contemporary  with  the  Jewish  Tar- 
gums, which  are  now  supposed  to  hail  from  the  1 1  Id  and 
IVth  Centuries.45  A  Samaritan  Epistle  contains  a  refer- 
ence to  "  the  Targum  of  Nathanael,"  as  doubtless  the  text 
is  to  be  translated.46  Cowley  suggests  identifying  this  Na- 
thanael with  the  father  of  Baba  Rabba,  c.  300  ;47  this  hy- 
pothesis would  agree  with  the  probabilities  as  to  the  date, 

43  See  above,  §  2. 

44  See  Kohn,  Zur  Sprache,  116,  124:  Frankel  in  Verhandlungcn  der 
ersten  Versammlung  dcntscher  u.   ausldndischer  Orientalistcn,  10. 

45  GJV  i,  149- 

46  iV.  et  E.  106  (121):  *?«  ]ini  DiJin  m  (not,  "the  Targum  which 
God  gave").  According  to  Winer,  Dc  vcrsionis  Pent.  Sam.  indole 
diss.,  9,  the  Samaritan  tradition  places  Nathanael  in  the  1st  Century. 

47  JE  x,  677.  It  may  be  questioned  whether,  just  as  Symmachus  ap- 
pears as  a  Samaritan  hero,  Nathanael  is  not  a  reminiscence  of  Theo- 
dotion,  the  other  Jewish  or  Ebionite  Hellenic  translator  of  the  Old 
Testament. 


THE  TARGUM  293 

although  the  history  of  "  Onkelos  "  warns  us  from  laying 
too  much  stress  upon  the  personal  tradition.  The  Targum 
then  would  be  a  product  of  that  age  of  literary  revival 
which  followed  the  cessation  of  Roman  persecution  of  the 
Hebrew  sects  and  preceded  the  persecutions  by  the  Chris- 
tian empire. 

§    8.       THE    ARABIC    TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

The  Samaritan  Arabic  versions  of  the  Pentateuch  were 
stimulated  by  the  elegant  version  of  the  Jewish  Arabist 
Saadya,  who  died  in  942.  These  translations  have  come  to 
bear  the  name  of  Abu  Said,  who  lived  in  the  Xlllth  Cen- 
tury. But  criticism  has  shown  that  various  translations  or 
recensions  have  been  made,  starting  possibly  from  Abu'l 
Chasan  of  Tyre,  who  flourished  in  the  Xlth  Century,  and 
passing  through  the  hands  of  a  certain  Abu'l  Barakat. 
Such  are  the  results  arrived  at  by  the  recent  investigations 
of  Kahle  and  Bloch.  Several  problems  however  remain 
unsolved,  as  for  instance  the  relation  of  the  Arabic  version 
to  the  Targum  and  Saadya.  No  complete  edition  of  the 
Samaritan  textus  rcccptus  has  as  yet  been  published,  though 
Kuenen  has  edited  the  first  three  books  of  the  Law.  It 
appears  that  many  important  MSS  have  never  yet  been  col- 
lated, such  as  the  Barberini  Triglot  and  the  English  codices. 
As  has  been  noticed  above  in  the  account  of  the  theology 
of  the  Samaritans,  the  Arabic  version  is  characterized  by 
the  painful  avoidance  of  all  anthropomorphisms;  the  trans- 
lation is  said  to  be  "  careful,  and  close  to  the  Hebrew."48 

48  Hwiid,  Specimen,  etc.,  describes  the  Arabic  text  of  the  Triglot; 
cf.  also  the  literature  on  this  codex  in  note  42  above.  The  Leyden 
MS  is  described,  with  excerpts,  by  van  Vloten,  Specimen  philologicum, 
1803.  Juynboll  published  a  Commentatio  de  versione  Arabic  o-Samari- 
tana,  in  Orientalia,  ii,  1846,  and  his  pupil  Kuenen,  upon  his  suggestion, 
edited  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  from  the  Leyden  MS  and  two  from 
the  Paris  Library,  in  1851-4.  Bloch  has  published  a  portion  of  Deuter- 
onomy in  his  Die  samaritanisch-arabische  Pcntatcuchiibcrsctzung,  Dcut. 


294  THE  SAMARITANS 


8    9-       COMMENTARIES   AND   OTHER   RELIGIOUS   TREATISES. 

The  great  theologian  of  the  Samaritans  is  Marka,  who 
has  left  behind  extensive  and  important  remains.  His 
sect  claims  that  he  is  the  eldest  of  its  writers,49  but  he  is 
now  generally  identified  with  the  Marka  who  was  son  of  a 
certain  Amram-Tuta  (or  Tuta  b.  Amram),  who  was  depu- 
ty of  one  of  the  districts  into  which  Baba  Rabba  divided 
his  land.50  Accordingly  he  would  have  lived  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  IVth  Century.  This  datum  agrees  with  the 
probability  that  the  theological  development  which  he  led 
began  in  that  notable  period  of  the  revival  of  Samaritanism. 
His  name  is,  with  Baneth,  to  be  explained  as  a  form  of  the 
Latin  Marcus,  while  he  seems  to  have  had  as  his  native 
name  Moses,  the  change  of  name  being  explained  by  the 
tradition  that  he  was  named  Moses  by  an  angel  at  his  birth, 
but  that  his  people  refused  him  the  right  to  use  the  name,  for 
which  Marka  was  substituted  as  having  the  same  gematriac 
value.51  That  an  older  literature  preceded  him  is  shown 
by  his  quotation  from  earlier  writers. 

His  great  work  is  a  large  Midrashic  volume  treating  of 
various  portions  and  subjects  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  com- 
posed of  six  books,  divided  into  these  four  parts  (so 
Baneth)  :  (1)  "  The  Book  of  Miracles,"  treating  of  Moses' 
Song;  (2)  an  explanation  of  Dt.  27,  9-26;  (3)  do.  of  Dt. 
31,  30-32,  43,  on  the  death  of  Moses;  (4)  "  a  Book  dealing 
with  the  22  Letters,  the  Elements  of  the  Hebrew  Lan- 
guage," being  an  explanation  of  the  use  of  the  letters  in 

i-xi,  with  a  valuable  description  of  the  MSS;  see  Kahle's  criticism  in 
Zeitschraft  f.  hcb.  Bibliographic,  vi,  1902,  p.  6.  The  latter  has  edited 
an  extract  (Ex.  4,  20-26)  in  his  Arabische  Bibeliibersetzungen,  1904. 
In  general  see  Cowley's  summary  of  the  question,  JE  x,  677. 

40  Petermann,  Reisen,  i,  236. 

*°Chron.  Neub.  441;  Abu'l  Fath,  133;  Chron.  Adler,  63.  See  above, 
pp.  103,  150. 

51  Petermann,  /.  c. 


COMMENTARIES  295 

the  Law, —  a  Haggadic  treatment  which  has  its  parallels  in 
Rabbinic  literature. 

This  work  is  composed  in  Aramaic,  and  is  rendered  most 
difficult  for  the  modern  student  by  its  illogical  vaporings  as 
well  as  by  the  sad  state  of  the  MS.  In  his  theology 
Marka  is  the  most  Kabbalistically  inclined  of  all  the  Sa- 
maritan writers,  and  he  has  evidently  drawn  his  Haggadic 
material  from  every  apocryphal  quarter  of  the  Jews  and 
even  from  more  distant  religions,  as  that  of  the  Mandseans. 
The  Samaritan  lack  of  genius  and  logic  ■  is  capitally  dis- 
played in  this  writer  of  whom  the  sect  boasts  as  its  great 
theologian.  A  large  number  of  liturgical  pieces  are  also 
extant  under  his  name,  and  some  which  are  ascribed  to 
a  certain  Moses  are  believed  by  Baneth  to  come  from  his 
hand.52 

A  fragment  of  an  Arabic  commentary,  of  date  of  1053, 
has  been  in  small  part  published  by  Neubauer ;  the  fragment 
covers  Gen.  1-28,  10.  This  editor  speaks  slightingly  of  its 
value,  but  it  is  given  a  higher  appreciation  by  Cowley.53 
It  is  interesting  for  its  quotations  from  the  Jewish  Bible 
and  the  Mishna. 

The  most  extensive  and  most  truly  exegetical  commen- 
tary among  the  Samaritans  is  that  of  Ibrahim  ibn  Yakub. 
The  author  lived  in  the  XVth  Century,  according  to 
Klumel,  but  Hanover  thinks,  not  before  the  XVIth.     The 

52  The  MS  of  Marka's  commentary  is  in  the  Berlin  Library.  Three 
books,  with  extracts  from  the  others,  have  been  edited  by  Heidenheim 
in  BS  iii,  along  with  extensive  prefaces,  dealing  especially  with  the 
theology.     Baneth  has  edited  the  last  portion  of  the  work  in  his  Des 

Samaritaners  Marqah  an  die  22  Bnchstaben ankniipfende  Abhand- 

lung,  1888,  with  preface  and  notes.  Munk  has  published  the  "  Death 
of  Moses,"  Des  Samaritaners  Marqa  Erzdhlung  iiber  den  Tod  Mosis, 
1890;  Emmerich,  the  "  Book  of  Miracles,"  in  Das  Sicgeslied,  etc.,  1897; 
and  Hildesheimer,  the  same,  Marqah's  Buck  der  Witnder,  1898.  For 
the  liturgical  material  of  Marka,  see  BS  ii,  and  articles  by  Heidenheim 
in  DVJ.  The  Pcssach-Haggadah,  published  by  Kohn,  is  also  a  com- 
position by  Marka. 

53  Neubauer,  Un  commcntaire  samaritain  inconnu,  1873,  giving  the 
text  of  the  preface ;  Cowley,  JQR  vii,  132. 


296  THE  SAMARITANS 

work  treats  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  em- 
braces 3288  manuscript  quarto  pages.  It  differs  from 
Marka  in  containing  but  a  minimum  of  Haggadic  material 
and  is  predominantly  Halachic.54 

An  anonymous  commentary  on  Genesis  of  the  XVI Ith 
Century  exists  in  the  Bodleian  Library.55  In  1753  Gazal 
ibn  Abu(l)  Sarur  wrote  a  commentary  on  Genesis  and 
Exodus,  called  the  "  The  Dissipater  of  Darkness  from  the 
Secrets." 

Little  is  known  and  very  little  has  been  published  of  the 
other  theological  literature  of  the  Samaritans.  In  1041 
Yusuf  ibn  Salama  composed  the  Kitab  al-Kafi,  "  a  kind  of 
Samaritan  Shulchan  Aruch."56  The  Kitab  at-Tabbach, 
"  Book  of  Cooks,"  by  Abu'l  Chasan  of  Tyre,  of  the  Xlth 
Century,  is  a  polemic  against  the  Jews.  The  same  author 
wrote  the  Kitab  al-Ma'ad,  on  the  future  life,  and  the  Kitab 
at-Tauba,  on  repentance.  In  the  Xllth  Century  Munajja 
ibn  Sadaka  composed  the  Kitab  al-Khilaf,  on  the  differ- 
ences between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans.57  His  son 
Sadaka,  a  physician  in  Damascus,  and  author  of  medical 
treatises,  also  wrote  theological  books.5S  Gazal  ibn  Duwaik 
wrote  on  the  story  of  Balak  and  the  restoration  of  the 
kingdom.  Other  authors  that  may  be  named  are  Salich  ibn 
Sarur  ibn  Sadaka,  Abu'l  Faraj  ibn  Ischak  (an  abridgment 

54  Small  sections  of  the  commentary  have  been  published  by  Klumel, 
Mischpatim.  Ein  samaritanisch-arabischcr  Commentar  su  Ex.  21- 
22,  15  von  Ibrahim  Ibn  Jakub,  1902  (the  portion  concerning  the  civil 
law)  ;  Hanover,  Das  Festgesetc  der  Samaritaner  nach  Ibrahim  ibn 
Ja'kub  (to  Lev.  23)  ;  also,  I  believe,  by  Drabkin,  Fragmenta  com- 
mentarii  ad  Pentateuchum  Samaritani-Arabici  sex,  1875.  See  these 
authors'  introductions.  For  other  commentaries  reference  may  be 
made  to  Steinschneider,  Die  arabische  Literatur  der  Juden,  324. 

55  Schnurrer  has  edited  Gen.  49  in  Eichhorn's  Repertorium,  xvi,  154. 
50  See  Colin,  Die  Zaraath-Gesetce  der  Bibel  nach  dem  Kitab  al-Kafi 

dcs  Jusuf  ibn  Salamah,  1899. 

57  See  Wreschner.  Samaritanische  Traditionen,  for  the  author,  his 
other  works,  and  a  discussion  of  his  relations  to  the  Karaites,  upon 
whom   he   reveals   a   great  dependence. 

58  Wreschner,  op.  at.  p.  xix;  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.,  139. 


COMMENTARIES  297 

of  the  laws  of  Moses),  and  Isma'il  ar-Rumaichi  (on  the 
praise  of  Moses).  Haggadic  material  appears  in  Heiden- 
heim's  Vierteljahrsschrift;  e.  g.  Leitner,  Legenden  Mosis, 
iv,  185.59 

§    IO.       THE  LITURGY. 

Apart  from  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  with  its  textual 
importance,  and  the  Targum  with  its  philological  problems, 
by  far  the  most  interesting  field  of  Samaritan  literature  is 
the  Liturgy.  It  is  strange  that  this  department  of  research 
has  been  comparatively  neglected.  The  pioneer  Gesenius 
was  the  first  to  edit  a  group  of  Samaritan  hymns ;  Heiden- 
heim  has  gained  the  honorable  merit  of  publishing  what  is, 
up  to  present  writing,  the  largest  collection  of  Samaritan 
liturgical  pieces,  some  123  in  all;  the  English  scholar  Cow- 
ley now  promises  an  early  volume  on  this  subject,  which 
doubtless  will  present  a  text  to  replace  the  unreliable  edit- 
ing of  Heidenheim,  withal  providing  the  much-needed  com- 
mentary to  the  material.60  What  has  been  so  far  published 
gives  no  idea  of  the  character  and  arrangement  of  the 
Liturgy  as  a  whole,  and  for  the  following  brief  review  I  am 
indebted  to  the  descriptions  given  by  Heidenheim  and  es- 
pecially by  Cowley. 

The  text  of  the  Samaritan  Liturgy  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum fills  twelve  large   quarto   volumes,   of   2000   pages ; 

59 1  have  followed  above  Nutt,  op.  cit.  131ft;  Cowley,  JE  x,  680; 
comparing  also  Geiger,  ZDMG  xx,  143,  and  Steinschneider,  op.  cit. 
3ioff. 

60  Gesenius,  Cannula  Samaritana,  1824  (he  observes,  p.  1,  the  at- 
tention paid  to  this  subject  by  Castellus  and  Marshall)  ;  Heiden- 
heim, several  liturgical  pieces  in  his  VJD,  and  finally  in  BS  ii,  1885; 
Petermann,  texts  in  Appendix  to  his  Grammatik ;  Merx,  Cannina  Sa- 
maritana, 1882;  also  publication  of  separate  hymns  by  Geiger,  Kohn, 
Rappoport,  et  al.  (see  Bibliography).  For  a  description  of  this  liter- 
ature, see  Heidenheim  BS  ii,  Einlcitang;  Cowley,  The  Samaritan 
Liturgy  and  Reading  of  the  Law,  JQR  vii,  121;  JE  x,  628;  Rappoport, 
La  liturgie  samaritaine,  1900.  Also  see  Margoliouth,  An  Ancient 
MS  of  the  Samaritan  Liturgy,  ZDMG  li,  499. 


298  THE  SAMARITANS 

much  more  material  is  also  found  in  other  libraries  of  Eu- 
rope. One  branch  of  this  material  is  composed  of  Biblical 
florilegia,  or  catena  of  verses  from  the  Scriptures,  gen- 
erally bound  together  by  some  clue  of  thought  or  word; 
another  branch  consists  of  prayers,  largely  in  prose;  yet 
another  embraces  Shirot,  or  hymns,  which  extend  from 
brief  ascriptions  of  praise  to  God  to  long-drawn-out  Mid- 
rashic  compilations  composed  for  recital  on  the  great  feasts 
and  fasts  and  the  Sabbath.  Provision  is  made  for  litur- 
gical response  between  minister  and  congregation.  No  sac- 
rificial formulas  appear  to  have  been  preserved ;  offices  for 
circumcision  and  marriage  exist,  but  have  not  been  pub- 
lished. 

Cowley,  the  only  scholar  who  has  given  a  scientific  and 
chronological  account  of  the  material,  divides  the  liturgical 
cycle  into  five  divisions,  as  follows  :  ( 1 )  the  Defter  ( through 
the  Arabic  from  8uf>6ePa,  i.e.  "the  Book");  (2)  the 
services  for  the  first  month,  Passover,  etc.;  (3)  for  the 
Pentecostal  period;  (4)  for  the  seventh  month,  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  and  Booths:  (5)  for  circumcision,  marriage 
and  burial.  The  Defter  comprises  compositions,  prayers 
and  hymns,  written  by  Marka  and  the  contemporaneous 
Amram  Dara,  and  is  the  eldest  stratum  of  the  Liturgy ;  this 
material  is  composed  in  the  Samaritan  Aramaic.  Amram's 
work,  making  what  is  called  the  Durran,  is  chiefly  in  prose ; 
Marka  gave  himself  out  in  poetry,  if  his  hymns  in  alpha- 
betic acrostic  may  be  so  termed.  These  productions  are 
for  a  variety  of  occasions,  and  the  same  book  also  in- 
cludes some  prayers  for  daily  use  and  for  the  Sabbath. 
Altogether  this  early  compilation  of  IVth  Century  compo- 
sitions has  set  the  norm  for  the  whole  Samaritan  Liturgy. 

Cowley  establishes  two  subsequent  epochs  of  liturgical 
development.  The  first  is  the  Xlth  Century  when  compo- 
sitions of  Abu'l  Chasan  of  Tyre  and  his  son  Ab  Geluga 
were  added  to  the  Defter.     Their  language  is  still  Aramaic. 


THE  LITURGY 


299 


The  second  liturgical  revival  occurred  in  the  XlVth  Cen- 
tury under  the  stimulus  of  the  highpriest  Phineas  b.  Joseph, 
the  patron  of  Abu'l  Fath.  The  liturgical  language  had 
now  become  Hebrew.  Composition  in  this  field  has  con- 
tinued down  to  our  own  age,  but  with  steady  debasement. 

To  consider  briefly  the  published  hymns,  most  of  them 
have  their  stanzas  arranged  according  to  alphabetic  acrostic. 
Those  of  the  later  period  rhyme  the  verses  of  a  stanza 
upon  the  same  syllable,  as  in  Arabic  poetry.  To  fit  his 
Procrustean  mould  both  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the 
verse,  the  writer  does  not  hesitate  to  distort  his  words. 
The  theology  and  general  contents  of  these  hymns  have 
been  touched  upon  in  Chapter  XII.  We  find  litanies  and 
praise-songs,  hymns  for  the  Sabbath  and  the  morning;  re- 
sponsive forms  used  at  the  exhibition  of  the  law;  requiem 
hymns,  meditations  over  death  and  the  Day  of  Judgment, 
warnings  to  the  sinners. 

Of  greatest  interest  are  the  long  Midrashic  hymns  com- 
posed for  the  Passover,  Pentecost,  Booths,  Kippur,  the 
most  notable  of  which  for  religious  feeling  and  expression 
are  those  for  the  two  great  seasons  in  the  seventh  month. 
The  hymn  regularly  begins  with  the  story  of  creation;  it 
may  go  off  into  a  long  astronomical  excursus;  the  lives  of 
the  Patriarchs  may  be  touched  upon ;  but  it  always  comes 
at  last  to  the  legislation  on  Sinai ;  the  final  stanzas  are 
then  devoted  to  the  encouragement  of  saints  and  the  rebuke 
of  sinners.  In  all  this  material  poetic  genius  is  rarely 
found;  there  is  occasionally  a  bit  of  literary  imagination, 
as  in  "  Abishua's  Dream  " ;  some  of  the  Morning  Hymns 
seem  to  be  a  little  kindled  with  the  rising  sun.  But  as  the 
poetical  form  is  borrowed  and  artificial,  so  also  the  idea  of 
writing  poetry  seems  to  have  been  in  imitation  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  Syrian-Christian  churches,  and  the  Samaritans 
simply  followed  suit  by  casting  their  tiresome  legends  into 
the  moulds  of  a  mechanical  poetry,  subsequently  modelled 


300  THE  SAMARITANS 

after  the  Arabic.  One  characteristic  cannot  be  denied  this 
literature;  it  is  full  of  moral  earnestness  and  of  sincerity  to 
the  principles  of  the  faith,  and  this  genuine  religious  spirit 
gives  a  true  dignity  to  very  much  that  is  in  itself  absurd 
and  trivial. 

§     II.       THE  CHRONICLES. 

Four  Samaritan  Chronicles  have  been  published  by  Euro- 
pean scholars ;  they  are  as  follows : 

( i )  A  Hebrew  work  called  the  Taulida,  the  equivalent  of 
the  Hebrew  Toledot,  "  genealogy,"  or  "  history."  Its  full 
title  is  "The  History  (taulida)  which  has  taken  place  be- 
tween the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews  (Rabbanites),  and  the 
Memorials  of  the  Samaritans  extending  down  to  the  Pres- 
ent." The  text  has  been  published  and  translated  by  Neu- 
bauer  and  by  Heidenheim;  having  been  discovered  by  the 
former  scholar,  it  may  for  distinction  be  called  the  Chronicle 
Neubauer.61 

The  basis  and  major  part  of  this  composition  was  a 
manuscript  prepared  by  Eleazar,  a  son  of  the  highpriest 
Amram,  written  in  1149.  It  begins  with  a  brief  astro- 
nomical calculation,  and  then  takes  up  the  history  from 
Adam  to  the  writer's  own  time.  His  work  has  been  con- 
tinued by  his  descendant  Jacob  b.  Ishmael,  who  prefaces  it 
with  a  calculation  of  the  Jubilees  which  have  occurred  since 
the  conquest  of  Canaan,  down  to  the  year  of  the  con- 
tinuator's   writing,    1346.     He   has   added   a   little   to   the 

61  A.  Neubauer,  Chronique  samaritaine ,  J  A  1869,  p.  385 ;  Heidenheim, 
Die  samaritanische  Chronik  des  Hohenpriesters  Elasar,  DVJ  iv,  347. 
Heidenheim  is  all  unconscious  of  Neubauer's  earlier  publication.  The 
MS  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  and  Neubauer  collated  it  with  a  private 
MS  which  he  does  not  further  describe.  The  references  in  this  work 
are  to  the  pages  of  Neubauer's  translation.  The  Hebrew  text  is  ac- 
companied with  an  Arabic  translation,  whose  readings  are  frequently 
cited  by  Neubauer.  According  to  Conder,  PEFQS,  1876,  p.  187,  the 
original  text  is  at  Nablus,  and  each  high  priest  adds  to  it  the  events 
of  his  pontificate. 


THE  CHRONICLES  30 1 

chronicle,  which  then  was  expanded  by  other  hands  and  is 
brought  down  to  1856.  The  work  is  not  much  more  than 
a  list  of  the  highpriests  and  of  the  chief  Samaritan  families 
with  their  locations,  some  scanty  and  brief  references  to 
external  history  being  introduced. 

(2)  The  Book  of  Joshua.  This  is  an  Arabic  work  writ- 
ten in  Samaritan  characters;  the  greater  part  of  the  MS  (to 
the  middle  of  c.  xlvi)  belongs  to  the  date  1362,  the  bal- 
ance, written  in  much  poorer  script,  to  15 13.  It  has  been 
published  by  Juynboll  in  text,  and  translation,  along  with 
ample  commentary.62 

The  work  is  actually  a  Midrash,  not  a  chronicle,  and  so 
differs  from  the  curt  annalistic  form  of  the  other  chronicles. 
It  begins  (cc.  1-8)  with  an  account  of  the  last  days  of 
Moses,  including  the  story  of  Balaam  and  the  war  with 
Midian.  Chap.  9  takes  up  the  proper  story  of  Joshua, 
which  is  an  extensive  Midrash  based  upon  the  Hebrew 
Joshua.  There  follows  (cc.  26-37)  the  apocryphal  story 
of  Shaubak,  a  Persian  king,  who  attacked  Israel  with  the 
aid  of  the  Giants  and  with  diabolic  wiles,  which  were  frus- 
trated by  Nabich  who  had  been  appointed  king  of  Trans- 
Jordan  (the  Nobach  of  Num.  32,  42).  There  follows  a  de- 
scription of  the  Golden  Age  of  the  Divine  Favor  down  to 

62  Juynboll,    Chronicum    Samaritanum cut    titulus    est    Liber 

To  sua,  1846.  (This  chronicle  was  earlier  treated  by  Reland  in  his 
Dissertations,  and  by  Hottinger  in  Excrc.  anti-Morin.,  and  Smegma 
orientate.)  The  results  of  Juynboll's  exhaustive  criticism  and  com- 
mentary for  the  most  part  still  stand.  The  MS  he  used  is  that  of 
Scaliger,  procured  by  that  scholar  from  Egyptian  Samaritans,  and 
now  deposited  in  the  Leyden  library.  Another  MS,  of  date  1502,  and 
in  the  British  Museum,  is  noted  by  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.  119.  Also  Adler, 
in  his  account  of  his  obtaining  the  chronicle  which  he  has  published, 
speaks  of  a  MS  of  this  work  which  he  attempted  to  purchase  from 
the  Samaritans.  But  the  Book  of  Joshua  does  not  seem  to  have  had 
wide  vogue  in  Samaria,  nor  is  it  mentioned  by  any  early  authorities  — 
a  fact  which  induced  Hengstenberg  to  deny  that  it  was  an  early  work 
{Authentic  d.  Pentatcuclics,  i,  41).  Kirchheim  has  given  a  Hebrew 
translation  in  his  Karme  Shomrou,  and  an  English  translation  has  been 
published  by  O.  T.  Crane,  The  Samaritan  Chronicle  or  The  Book  of 
Joshua,  iSqo. 


3<*2  THE  SAMARITANS 

the  death  of  Samson,  cc.  38-40.  The  causes  of  the  Age  of 
Disfavor  are  then  narrated,  the  ringleaders  of  the  schism 
from  die  true  Israel  being  the  house  oi  Eli.  and  Samuel. 
In  c.  45  is  given  the  "  history  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  king  of 
Mosul."  That  king,  after  destroying  Jerusalem  (the  ac- 
count in  Kings  is  briefly  followed),  also  harries  and  depopu- 
lates Samaria,  exiling  the  Samaritans  and  replacing  them 
with  Persian  colonists.  But  the  land  loses  its  power  of 
production:  its  fruits  are  fair  without  but  rotten  within. 
The  king  learns  that  the  cause  of  this  calamity  is  the  failure 
of  the  proper  rites  of  the  God  of  the  Samaritans,  and  he 
allows  the  whole  people  to  return.  The  Jews  accompany 
them,  but  refuse  to  take  part  ir  the  worship  on  Gerizim. 
desiring  to  rebuild  Jerusalem.  The  case  is  appealed  to  the 
king,  and  the  books  of  the  two  sects  are  presented  in  argu- 
ment. The  Samaritan  king  Sanballat  suggests  the  ordeal 
of  tire :  he  casts  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  presented  in  evidence 
by  Zerubbabel.  into  the  flames,  and  they  are  destroyed. 
The  latter  begs  off  from  thus  ill-treating  the  holy  Law  of 
the  Samaritans,  but  submitting  to  the  king,  casts  it  into  the 
flame  three  times,  and  it  comes  forth  unharmed.63  C.  46 
is  the  history  of  Alexander  the  Great :  it  includes  a  parallel 
to  the  Jewish  story  of  the  appearance  of  the  highpriest  to 
Alexander  in  a  dream,  and  the  conqueror's  subsequent  °ra- 
ciousness ;  Alexander's  visit  to  the  land  of  darkness :  the  le- 
gend of  his  ascending  car ;  the  story  of  the  evasion  of  his 
command  to  erect  his  statue  by  the  Samaritans  naming  their 
children  after  him.  The  history  of  Hadrian,  c.  47.  con- 
taining the  story  of  Ephraim  and  Manasse.  has  been  re- 
ferred to  in  Chap.  VI,  §  2.  CC.  48-50  give  the  history  of 
Akbun.  his  son  Nathanael.  and  his  grandson  Baba  Ra'bba, 

63  The  Samaritans  professed  to  have  this  identical  "  Fire-tried  Manu- 
script '  ;  see  Rosen.  ZDMG  xviii,  586.  and  for  its  subsequent  fortunes 
Cooder,  Tetit  H  ork,  i.  54.  ' 


THE  CHRONICLES  303 

the  data  of  which  have  already  been  made  use  of  in  Chapter 
VI,  §  3- 

Juynboll's  results  are  in  brief  as  follows:  The  basis  of 
the  work  is  cc.  9-25,  which,  as  the  title  to  c.  9  shows,  is 
the  original  Book  of  Joshua.  The  Egyptian  origin  of  the 
work  is  rendered  probable  by  its  use  of  the  Septuagint  nar- 
rative in  many  places,  and  as  well  by  the  non-use  of  the 
Seleucidan  era,  which  appears  in  native  Samaritan  writings. 
The  original,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  compiler  in 
the  opening  words  of  c.  1,  was  composed  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  by  which  doubtless  is  to  be  understood  the  Sa- 
maritan Aramaic  dialect.  This  early  composition  belongs 
then  to  that  extensive  class  of  literature  dealing-  with 
Moses,  the  Exodus,  and  the  early  history  of  Israel,  which 
had  its  beginnings  early  in  the  Alexandrian  age;  Aristo- 
bulus  of  the  age  of  Ptolemy  Philometor  was  a  prolific  com- 
poser of  such  writings,  and  in  addition  there  may  be  re- 
called the  extensive  Moses  legends,  fragments  of  which 
have  been  preserved,  and  also  the  dramatic  compositions 
composed  by  the  Jewish  poets  Philo  and  Ezekiel,  and  the 
Samaritan  Theodotus,  who  has  been  noticed  above.64 

In  addition  to  this  early  Hellenistic  composition  which 
has  been  preserved  only  in  free  rendering  in  the  present 
Arabic  form,  Juynboll  assumes  three  other  Arabic  sources 
which  have  also  been  used  by  the  compiler,  one  of  these 
being  the  basis  of  the  first  eight  chapters,  the  other  two 
being  used  in  the  last  part  of  the  work;  the  legends  incor- 
porated in  these  documents  would  also  doubtless  go  back 
to  early  Jewish  or  Hellenistic  sources.  Thus  the  Balaam 
episode  in  cc.  3,  4  is  probably  drawn  from  "  the  Books 
of  Balaam"  mentioned  in  c.  41,  and  these  compositions 
are  to  be  connected  with  the  considerable  literature 
which,  it  would  appear,  grew  up  about  the  false  prophet's 

84  Consult  in  general  Schiirer,  GJV  iii,  esp.  pp.  219,  287,  384. 


304  THE  SAMARITANS 

name.65  The  legend  of  Shaubak,  in  which  the  Israelitish 
hero  Nabich  appears  in  a  more  distinguished  light  than 
Joshua,  evidently  goes  back  to  some  early  independent 
source, —  we  may  conjecture  from  some  Trans-Jordanic  lit- 
erature which  extolled  the  local  history.66 

The  legends  incorporated  in  the  last  part  of  the  book, 
from  c.  47  on,  are  all  parallel  to,  in  most  cases  drawn  from, 
Jewish  material.  In  general  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
legends  for  the  Biblical  period  are  entirely  taken  from 
the  Old  Testament  literature,  although  not  at  first  hand, 
as  appears  in  the  confusion  concerning  the  period  of  Nebu- 
chadrezzar. Also  the  official  annals  of  the  priesthood 
have  been  used,  but  not  in  so  annalistic  a  way  as  in  the 
other  chronicles. 

Juynboll  regards  the  present  Book  of  Joshua  as  the  com- 
pilation of  one  hand.  But  it  is  probably  preferable  to  agree 
with  Vilmar  in  regarding  cc.  47  et  seqq.  (beginning  with 
the  story  of  Nebuchadrezzar)  as  a  later  supplement.  In 
Abul  Fath's  reference  to  our  book,  CT  he  speaks  of  a  manu- 
script containing  "  the  Book  of  Joshua  and  other  ma- 
terial." That  is,  this  supplementary  material  was  already 
added  to  the  book,  but  regarded  as  distinct;  also  the  same 
chronicler  reports  that  he  drew  his  story  of  Baba  Rabba's 
nephew  Levi  from  an  old  Hebrew  narrative,  which  he  gives 
for  what  it  is  worth.     It  thus  appears  that  this  supplement 

65  Juynboll,  p.  81;  notice  the  refif.  to  Origen,  Horn,  xii'i,  in  lib.  Num; 
C.  Cels.  i,  59. 

06  No  trace  of  this  story  appears  independently  in  the  Jewish  liter- 
ature, but  Samuel  Shullam,  the  Jewish  editor  of  Juchasin  (1556),  ap- 
pended an  abstract  of  the  Samaritan  legend  to  his  edition,  remarking : 
"  I  happened  to  see  (this)  in  the  annals  of  the  Samaritans,  who  de- 
livered what  they  saw  in  a  certain  commentary  (Midrash)  of  the 
Jews."  We  cannot  tell  on  what  authority  the  latter  part  of  this  asser- 
tion is  made.  This  would  be  the  only  instance  where  later  Judaism 
has  borrowed   from   Samaritan   literature.     See  Juynboll,  81,  263. 

07  See  below,  p.  306.  The  historian  Masudi  (writing  943)  in  referring 
to  the  Samaritan  story  of  the  Exile  does  not  appear  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  Book  of  Joshua;  de  Sacy,  Chrest.  arabe,  i,  343. 


THE  CHRONICLES  3°5 

was  not  yet  added,  but  was  known  to  Abu'l  Fath  in  its  ori- 
ginal form.68 

The  compilation  then  is  a  mass  of  legends  drawn  from 
many  sources,  much  of  which  material  may  be  traced  back 
to  the  beginning  of  the  present  era  and  perhaps  earlier. 
As  for  the  age  of  the  compilation,  which  Juynboll  assigns 
to  one  hand,  that  scholar  argues  with  great  acuteness  that 
the  compiler  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  XHIth  Century,69 
and  that  he  was  of  priestly  race  and  Egyptian  habitat. 
The  chronicler  Abu'l  Fath  used  the  book  in  the  century 
following,  and  the  Arabic  historian  Makrizi,  in  the  XVth 
Century,  appears  to  have  been  acquainted  with  it. 

(3)  The  Chronicle  of  Abu'l  Fath.  This  is  the  most  suc- 
cessful attempt  among  the  Samaritans  to  produce  a 
chronicle  with  some  aim  at  literary  form.  The  author 
writes  in  a  vulgar  Arabic,  is  unfitted  as  a  critic,  and  very  dis- 
proportionate in  his  use  of  his  material.  Withal  there  is 
a  pathetic  interest  in  his  undertaking,  which  intended  to  re- 
cover the  history  of  his  people  in  a  day  when  the  traditions 
of  the  sect  seemed  in  danger  of  disappearing,  and  he  evi- 
dently made  an  honest  effort  to  procure  all  reliable  written 
material  that  was  at  command.  The  text  has  been  pub- 
lished by  Vilmar,  and  partly  published  and  translated  by 
Payne  Smith.70  The  author  belonged  to  the  distinguished 
Danafite  family  —  to  be  connected  probably  with  the  vil- 
lage Defne,  E  of  Nablus.  He  gives  an  interesting  intro- 
duction telling  how  he  came  to  write  his  book ;  he  executed 

6S  See  Vilmar,  Abu'l  Fath,  p.  lxvii.  The  reference  In  Abu'l  Fath  is 
P-  139.  1-  5-  Notice  that  c.  47  is  entitled,  "  The  history  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, which  is  found  in  books," —  i.e.  evidently  a  supplementary  ad- 
dition. 

09  P.  97. 

70  Vilmar,  Abulfathi  annates  Samaritani,  1865 ;  Payne-Smith,  The 
Samaritan  Chronicle  of  Abu'l  Fatch,  DVJ  ii,  303,  431  (for  the  sus- 
pension of  this  work  see  the  Bibliography).  Fath  should  properly  be 
transliterated  fatch,  the  ch  to  be  pronounced  independently  of  the  pre- 
ceding t. 
20 


3o6  THE  SAMARITANS 

the  work  "  only  for  the  reason  that  he  was  in  a  certain 
country,  and  the  ruler  of  it  asked  him  about  their  chronicles, 
and  requested  him  to  compile  for  him  this  chronicle."  This 
request  he  bore  in  mind  when  he  visited  the  higiipriest 
Phineas  in  Nablus  in  1352,  and  the  latter  commanded  him 
to  compile  such  a  history.  He  delayed  the  work,  however, 
for  three  years,  when  he  again  visited  Nablus,  and  then 
asked  the  highpriest  to  provide  him  with  the  materials  for 
his  undertaking.  He  tells  us  that  he  omitted  much  that 
was  wearisome,  and  honestly  followed  his  authorities;  "I 
have  aimed  at  what  was  true  and  sincere,  and  endeavored 
to  compile  an  authentic  narrative." 

He  then  gives  a  list  of  his  authorities;  they  are:  (1) 
the  Book  of  the  Province  (  qit{  al-baladf),  in  Arabic  script 
and  language;  (2)  the  Chronicle  of  the  Book  of  the  Prov- 
ince (tarikh,  etc.),  in  Hebrew  script  but  Arabic  in  lan- 
guage; (3)  a  chronicle  with  which  is  bound  up  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  along  with  other  material,  in  the  Arabic  script  and 
language;  (4)  three  defective  chronicles,  "  in  my  own  pos- 
session," which  were  brought  to  him  from  Damascus;  (5) 
"  a  genealogy  (salsalat)  copied  by  the  hand  of  our  lord  the 
highpriest  aforesaid,  in  (from  ?)  the  writing  of  the  high- 
priest  Eleazar  aforesaid,  wherein  is  recorded  the  origin  of 
the  Samaritans;"  (6)  some  fasciculi.  The  chronicle  of 
Sadaka,  however,  he  would  not  use,  because,  while  he  ac- 
knowledged its  literary  excellence,  it  was  not  corroborated 
by  genuinely  historical  authorities. 

Abu'l  Fath  has  made  large  use  of  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
and  a  comparison  of  his  work  with  the  Toleda  of  Eleazar 
{Chronicle  Neubauer)  shows  his  dependence  upon  that 
work  as  well.  It  is  not  apparent  which  of  the  sources  he 
names  was  this  earlier  chronicle;  it  may  have  been  the 
Salsalat  which  he  connects  with  Eleazar  the  highpriest.71 

71  Payne-Smith  has  ignored  the  reference  to  Eleazar  in  his  trans- 
lation.    I  cannot  make  sense  out  of  the  passage  except  by  supposing 


THE  CHRONICLES  307 

Abu'l  Fath  begins  with  Adam,  and  carries  down  his  work 
as  far  as  the  commencement  of  the  Muslim  empire,  or  more 
exactly  to  the  year  756,  with  which  date  he  concludes.  At 
least  so  Vilmar,  doubtless  rightly,  judges,  holding  that  the 
subsequent  additions,  which  appear  in  only  two  of  the  four 
MSS,  are  the  work  of  subsequent  composers.  The  other 
two  MSS  jointly  continue  the  story  into  the  time  of  the 
first  Abbasides.  Each  of  these  is  further  continued  with  its 
peculiar  supplements,  the  latest  belonging  to  the  year 
I^53-72  Abu'l  Fath  lays  special  stress  in  his  chronology 
upon  the  exposition  of  the  well-known  theory  of  the  Sa- 
maritans concerning  the  ages  of  the  world. 

(4)  Yet  another  Toleda  exists  which  from  its  discoverer 
and  editor  we  may  call  the  Chronicle  Adler.73  The  lan- 
guage is  Hebrew,  with  some  Samaritan  words,  and  with 
two  liturgical  pieces  in  the  Samaritan  dialect,  a  hymn  of 
Baba  Rabba  and  one  of  Marka.  The  work  is  arranged 
under  the  years  of  the  world  and  according  to  the  succes- 
sion of  the  patriarchs  and  highpriests,  coming  down  to  the 
year  1899.  It  is  much  more  expansive  than  the  earlier 
Toleda,  drawing  most  largely  from  Abu'l  Fath,  so  far  as 
that  goes,  and  also  containing  some  independent  material.74 

that  the  contemporary  highpriest  had  made  his  copy  "from"  (cor- 
recting- "  in  ")  the  writing  of  Eleazar,  who  then  might  be  the  author 
of  the  Toleda,  although  the  latter  does  not  appear  to  have  been  high- 
priest,  only  the  younger  son  of  one.  Vilmar,  p.  xxix,  thinks  that 
Eleazar  the  son  of  Aaron  is  meant  and  that  the  work  is  the  genealogy 
of  the  "Book  of  the  Highpriests"  mentioned  in  Lib.  Jos.  c.  47,  sub  fin. 
We  do  not  know  who  is  the  Sadaka,  the  author  of  the  chronicle 
Abu'l  Fath  rejects;  he  may  be  the  theologian,  the  son  of  Munajja, 
mentioned  above.  It  appears  from  his  phraseology  that  Abu'l  Fath 
also  made  direct  use  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures ;  see  Vilmar,  p.  xcviii. 

72  See  Chap.  VII,  note  1. 

73  The  text  appears  in  Adler  and  Seligsohn,  Une  nouvelle  chronique 
samaritaine,  REJ  1902-3,  and  in  reprint,  with  some  change  in  the 
preface,  in  1903.  A  translation  accompanies  the  text,  with  excellent 
brief  notes,  some  from  the  hand  of  Israel  Levi,  especially  bearing  upon 
the  correspondences  with  the  other  chronicles.  The  editors  have  used 
a  copy  made  to  order  from  a  Nablus  MS. 

74  For  some  valuable  notes  on  the  new  data  of  this  chronicle,  see 


3o8  THE  SAMARITANS 

It  is  evidently  later  throughout  than  the  other  chronicles 
registered  above.  The  references  to  foreign  events  in  its 
history  of  modern  times  show  that  the  Samaritans  have 
learned  to  take  an  interest  in  things  apart  from  their  own 
concerns. 

From  the  above  brief  study  of  the  extant  chronicles  it  is 
evident  that  a  considerable  literature  both  of  annalistic  and 
of  Midrashic  character  stood  at  the  disposal  of  the  Sa- 
maritan historians.  Abu'l  Fath  has  iescribed  the  sources 
which  he  made  use  of,  and  they  were  of  considerable  extent. 
Two  of  these  can  be  identified  with  the  first  Toleda  and  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  but  the  others  are  still  unknown  to  us. 
The  two  "  Books  of  the  Province  "  are  probably  nothing 
else  than  registers  of  the  families  in  their  respective  settle- 
ments, the  material  which  largely  lies  at  the  base  of  the  first 
Toleda.  Another  authority  was  a  genealogical  list.  The 
Book  of  Joshua,  c.  47,  sub.  fin.,  mentions  in  a  list  of  the  Sa- 
maritan literature,  most  of  which  it  asserts  was  lost  in  the 
Hadrianic  persecution,  a  Book  of  the  Highpriests;  Annals 
containing  the  birth-dates  and  the  ages  of  the  priests ;  and 
also  a  book  containing  the  lives  of  the  priests  —  which  was 
preserved.  Among  the  MSS  which  Adler  tried  to  pur- 
chase at  Nablus  was  a  Chronicle,  c^Tl  "Hil*  and  a  Book 
of  Inheritances,  m^TT'  "13D> 75  probably  a  domesday  book, 
of  the  same  nature  as  the  "  Books  of  the  Province."  Fur- 
ther, as  to  these  sources,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  they  all 
must  have  been  in  the  Hebrew,  Aramaic,  or  Arabic  tongues, 
for  by  the  lid  Millennium  all  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Latin 
had  doubtless  perished  from  the  Samaritans;  whatever 
sources  of  Hellenistic  origin  underlie  our  chronicles,  were 

Clermont-Ganneau,  Journal  des  Savants,   1904,   p.  34.     The   chronicle 
was   compiled   in    1900.     A   slightly   variant   text,   and   older   by   a    few 
years,   of  this   chronicle   is   noted  by   Macler,   Note   stir  tine  nouvellc 
manuscrit  d'unc  chronique  samaritainc,  REJ  1905. 
75  In  introduction  to  his  Nonvelle  chronique. 


THE  CHRONICLES  '309 

mediated   to   the   authors   through   versions   in   the   native 
vernaculars. 

For  the  purpose  of  a  brief  analysis  of  the  sources  of  the 
chronicles  it  is  logical  to  divide  them  into  those  of  native 
and  those  of  foreign  origin.  Of  the  native  sources  doubt- 
less the  most  reliable  were  the  official  priestly  genealogies, 
which  the  Samaritans  proudly  trace  back  in  direct  suc- 
cession to  Eleazar  son  of  Aaron.  But  when  we  recall  that 
in  the  far  more  historically-minded  Jewish  church  the  rec- 
ord of  their  highpriests  has  been  only  partially  and  often 
contradictorily  preserved  by  Josephus  and  Christian  chro- 
nographers,  there  is  no  antecedent  reason  why  we  should 
place  confidence  in  the  names  and  successions  of  the  Sa- 
maritan genealogy,  at  least  before  the  IVth  Christian  Cen- 
tury, since  which  age  the  Samaritan  chronicles  become 
more  trustworthy  as  to  native  memorials.  That  the  suc- 
cession is  defective  is  shown  by  the  long  chronological 
gaps  which  actually  exist  between  the  ages  of  men  who 
are  supposed  to  have  succeeded  one  another ;  in  some  cases  it 
appears  that  the  Jewish  lists  have  been  copied.76  When  in 
later  days  the  priesthood  had  become  the  sole  school  of 
learning,  we  find  that  their  official  lists  assumed  more  of 
an  annalistic  character,  noting  important  events  even  in 
foreign  history,  as  we  observe  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
Chronicle  Adler.  But  we  cannot  detect  any  such  native 
notices  of  general  historical  character  in  the  early  Toledot ; 
all  such  information  seems  to  have  been  worked  up  by  the 
subsequent  compilers,  who  made  use  of  the  genealogies  as 
a  skeleton,  into  which  they  arbitrarily  fitted  material  drawn 
from  foreign  sources. 

76  Since  the  time  of  Scaliger  these  lists  have  been  of  interest  to 
historians.  But  the  records  in  the  several  chronicles  differ ;  there 
is  discrepancy  in  Abu'l  Fath  between  the  list  followed  in  his  chronicle 
and  that  appended  at  the  end  of  the  work.  Heidenheim  gives  a  com- 
parative table  of  the  lists  in  the  first  Toledo  and  in  Abu  I  Fath  in 
VJD  iv,  387.     Attention  may  here  be  called  to  the  list  of  highpriests 


310  THE  SAMARITANS 

What  has  been  said  concerning  the  Midrashic  compo- 
nents of  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  sufficient  to  show  the  un- 
historic  character  of  that  material ;  much  of  it  comes  down 
from  the  Hellenistic  period,  but  has  no  independent  au- 
thority for  the  history  of  the  Samaritans,  as  it  is  almost 
entirely  borrowed  or  imitated  from  Jewish  legends. 

As  to  foreign  sources,  our  chroniclers  follow  the  ex- 
ample of  the  chronographers  in  inserting  notices  of  events 
of  universal  history:  thus  they  observe  the  rise  of  sects, 
like  Judaism  and  Christianity,  make  mention  of  contem- 
porary philosophers  like  Ptolemy.  But  these  references, 
as  Vilmar  judges,77  do  not  depend  upon  original  Samar- 
itan chronicles  or  traditions,  but  ignorantly  and  ineptly 
borrow  from  various  late  chronicles  of  the  Jews,  Chris- 
tians, and  Moslems.  Josephus  b.  Gorion  seems  to  have 
been  the  medium  of  much  of  the  Jewish  history,  and  in  part 
Eutychius  was  relied  upon.  Only  for  the  period  of  the 
Samaritan  revival  in  the  IVth  and  Vth  Centuries  does  there 
appear  to  be  any  genuine  native  tradition,  although  even 
here  the  chronology  is  sadly  confused,  showing  that  only 
certain  brief  stretches  of  history  were  preserved  by  tradi- 
tion. For  the  ages  of  Islam  in  which  we  no  longer  have 
the  guidance  of  Abu'l  Fath,  the  chronicles  are  vague  and 
intermittent,  as  evinced  in  the  Chapter  devoted  above  to 
the  Islamic  period. 

If  then  the  historian  comes  to  the  Samaritan  chronicles 
with  any  large  expectations,  he  is  bound  to  be  disap- 
pointed. They  throw  almost  no  light  on  universal  history, 
add  nothing  to  our  scanty  knowledge  of  the  beginnings  of 
the  Samaritans  and  of  the  first  six  centuries  of  their  exist- 
ence, at  the  best  but  illuminate  the  cruel  history  of  the 
Byzantine  period,  and  give  much  insipid  gossip  on  events  of 

from  the   time   of   Mohammed    to    1853   in    the   supplement  to   Codex 
A  of  Abu'l  Fath,  given  hy  Vilmar,  p.  lxxviii. 
77 1  refer  to  his  excellent  treatment  of  Abu'l  Fath's  sources,  p.  lxxxv. 


THE  CHRONICLES  311 

generally  small  importance.  The  Samaritans  are  certainly 
at  the  extreme  of  the  oriental  lack  of  historic  sense,  and 
the  study  of  their  annals  provokes  us  to  name  them  in  the 
language  of  the  Sirachide,  "  the  foolish  people  that  dwell  at 
Shechem."  Yet  the  remains  of  Samaritan  literature  in 
other  fields  must  make  us  hesitate  to  condemn  them  too 
severely.  We  have  to  remember  that  between  the  period 
of  their  bloom  and  the  date  of  the  first  extant  known 
chronicle  lie  some  six  centuries.  What  of  their  earlier  his- 
torical material  has  been  lost,  we  do  not  know ;  it  is  possible 
that  future  finds  may  improve  our  opinion  of  their  histor- 
ical ability.  The  insipid  traditions  of  the  ignorant  and 
debased  community  have  preserved  just  such  legends  as 
please  the  ecclesiastical  appetite  of  a  provincial  sect, 
whose  life  was  intentionally  lived  apart  from  the  world. 
Indeed  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  what  we  possess  are 
ecclesiastical  annals,  framed  upon  a  theological  scheme  of 
history,  and  with  the  desire  to  edify;  hence  we  have  not  to 
expect  history  in  our  sense  of  the  word.  When  at  last  the 
keen  Arabic  spirit  of  historical  research  infected  the  Sa- 
maritans, so  worthy  and  honest  a  chronicler  as  Abu 'I  Fath 
had  little  more  to  build  upon  than  a  residuum  of  inane 
tradition. 

§12.       SCIENTIFIC    WORKS. 

Following  the  example  of  Jewish  scholars,  the  Samar- 
itans felt  the  necessity  of  philological  study,  especially  for 
the  conservation  of  their  sacred  language.  Hence  Abu 
Said,  probably  the  same  as  the  translator  of  the  Pentateuch, 
wrote  his  Canons  of  the  Scripture,  to  correct  certain  mis- 
pronunciations of  its  language.  The  largest  grammatical 
work  is  that  of  Abu  Ischak  Ibrahim  ibn  Faraj  (surnamed 
"the  Sun  of  the  Sages"),  of  the  Xllth  Century.  The 
work,  called  the  Tautia,  a  technical  Arabic  name,  embraces 
164  MS  pages,  but  is  incomplete  and  disproportionate  in 


312  THE  SAMARITANS 

its  treatment.  These  two  books  show  a  slight  dependence 
upon  the  Jewish  grammarians.  An  abstract  of  the  sec- 
ond work  exists,  in  the  Leyden  MS  that  contains  both,  com- 
posed by  Eleazar  ben  Phineas,  who  died  in  1387.78  Two 
MSS  of  lexical  character  exist;  one  is  at  Christ's  College, 
Cambridge,  composed  by  a  Phineas,  who  was  either  the 
father  or  the  successor  of  the  aforesaid  Eleazar,  the  other, 
which  is  at  Paris,  being  a  dictionary  of  the  Hebrew  of  the 
Pentateuch,  with  the  Arabic  and  Samaritan  arranged  along 
therewith  in  parallel  columns.  The  two  are  said  to  corre- 
spond closely.     Their  MS  dates  are  1774  and  1476.79 

The  exigencies  of  the  church  year  required  sufficient 
astronomical  science  to  calculate  the  calendar  in  advance 
for  a  certain  term ;  this  was  necessary  in  order  to  bring  the 
ancient  lunar  year  into  agreement  with  the  solar  year, 
which  latter  governed  the  course  of  the  Hebrew  sacred 
seasons.  It  was,  as  in  the  Jewish  church,  the  duty  of  the 
priesthood  to  make  such  calculations  and  to  publish  the  re- 
sults among  their  coreligionists.  As  a  rule  these  calen- 
dars appear  to  have  been  sent  out  semi-annually.  In  their 
European  correspondence  the  Samaritans  exhibited  a  pain- 
ful anxiety  in  stating  their  reckonings  to  their  "  Brethren  " 
and  in  inquiring  after  the  calendar  of  the  latter.  Several 
such  calendars  have  been  published,  and  much  material  of 
the  same  kind  exists  in  MS  form.80 

In  the  sphere  of  physical  science  the   Samaritans  pro- 

78  See  Noldeke's  description  of  these  works  in  Ueber  eiuige  samari- 
tanisch-arabische  Schriften,  die  hebraische  Sprache  betreffend,  1862, 
containing  text  and  translation  of  Abu  Said's  treatise.  Geiger  has 
published  extracts  of  Ibrahim's  work  in  ZDMG  xvii,  723.  Comp. 
Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.  148. 

79  See  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.  150.  Harkavy,  ibid.  161,  states  that  the 
lacunse  in  the  Paris  lexicon  may  now  be  rilled  out  from  MSS  in  St. 
Petersburg. 

80  Tables  have  been  published  by  Scaliger,  De  emcndatione  tcmporum, 
657  (ed.  1629)  ;  de  Sacy,  N.  et  E.  135  (153)  ',  Heidenheim,  BS  iii, 
Beilagen,  vi-viii.  Cf.  N.  et  E.,  34;  BS  iii,  p.  xxxvi ;  Nutt,  Sam. 
Targ.  145.  For  the  MS  material,  see  Journal  asiatique,  xiv,  467; 
Harkavy,  in  Nutt,  162;  JE  x,  680. 


SCIENTIFIC  WORKS  313 

duced  several  physicians  of  note  whose  works  find  a  place 
in  Arabic  literature.  One  of  these  was  Sadaka  ibn  Mu- 
najja  ibn  Sadaka,  mentioned  above,  who  wrote  a  commen- 
tary on  the  Aphorisms  of  Hippocrates.  Another  was  Mu- 
hadhdhib  ad-Din  Yusuf  ibn  Abu  Said  ibn  Kalaf.  The 
latter  had  a  nephew  Abu'l  Chasan  ibn  Gazal  ibn  Abu  Said, 
who  wrote  on  many  subjects  connected  with  natural  his- 
tory and  was  famous  for  his  great  library;  he  accepted 
Islam.  Also  Muwaffik  ad-Din,  another  physician,  wrote  a 
commentary  on  the  Canon  of  Avicenna.  All  these  writers 
flourished  in  the  XHIth  Century,  and  some  of  them  are 
known  to  have  been  connected  with  Damascus  and  its 
court.81 

§    13.      RESUME  OF  THE  LITERARY  ACTIVITY   OF  THE   SA- 
MARITANS. 

The  earliest  literary  monument  of  the  Samaritans  is 
their  edition  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  view  of  the  frequent 
agreements  with  the  Greek  version  and  from  the  intrinsic 
excellence  of  many  of  the  readings,  we  cannot  doubt  that 
it  exhibits  evidence  of  a  comparatively  early  text.  When 
we  read  in  the  Talmud  of  the  Samaritan  falsifications  in 
the  Law,  it  would  seem  that  these  had  been  long  estab- 
lished, and  accordingly  we  may  judge  that  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  in  its  original  form  well  antedates  the  formula- 
tion of  a  final  text  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  church  in 
Jerusalem.  The  Samaritan  edition  then  goes  back  at  least 
to  the  time  of  the  pre-Christian  centuries,  when,  as  the 
Greek  text  shows,  for  example  in  the  last  chapters  of  Ex- 
odus, the  text  of  the  Law  was  still  in  flux. 

This   monument,   important   as    it   is   to   scholarship,    is 

81  See  Juynboll,  Hist.  Sam.  56;  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ.  138,  and  the  refer- 
ences in  these  places,  especially  Wustenfeld,  Geschichte  d.  arabischen 
Aerzte,  121.  A  number  of  medical  fragments  are  said  to  be  contained 
in  the  St.   Petersburg  collection ;  see  Harkavy,  in  Nutt,   163. 


314  THE  SAMARITANS 

however  no  indication  of  any  literary  activity  on  the  part 
of  the  Samaritans  in  the  first  centuries  of  their  community's 
existence,  as  the  work  was  borrowed  from  the  Jews,  and 
the  activity  amounted  to  falsification.  For  other  traces  of 
pre-Christian  theological  literature  we  look  in  vain,  al- 
though it  cannot  be  denied  that  at  the  basis  of  much  of  the 
liturgy  lies  material  which  goes  back  at  least  to  the  begin- 
ning of  our  era;  this  is  rendered  probable  by  the  corre- 
spondences traced  in  a  former  Chapter  between  the  primi- 
tive Samaritan  theology  and  the  doctrines  of  early  Juda- 
ism, especially  in  the  fields  of  eschatology  and  Messianism. 
The  literary  activity  of  the  Samaritans  may  be  divided 
into  three  periods,  each  of  which  was  controlled  and  stimu- 
lated by  external  conditions.  These  are  namely,  the  Greek, 
the  Aramaic,  and  the  Arabic  periods. 

A.  THE  GREEK   PERIOD. 

The  first  stimulus  to  a  Samaritan  literature  appears  to 
have  been  on  Egyptian  soil,  where  the  necessity  of  apology 
toward  Jews  and  Gentiles  gave  origin  to  a  literature  which 
was  a  reflex  of  the  contemporary  Jewish  writings  of  the 
same  character.  Under  Section  5  above  have  been  indi- 
cated the  slight  traces  we  possess  of  a  Hellenistic  litera- 
ture ;  to  this  is  to  be  added  that  Midrashic  material,  doubt- 
less of  Egyptian  Aramaic  origin,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
underlay  the  original  Book  of  Joshua.  We  may  conceive 
that  this  activity  of  the  Egyptian  Diaspora  was  looked 
upon  askance  by  the  home-church,  even  as  in  Judaism,  and 
that  Samaria  was  little  affected  by  the  efforts  of  the  ex- 
iled litterateurs. 

B.  THE  ARAMAIC  PERIOD. 

So  far  as  we  are  able  to  give  any  chronology,  this  period 
had  its  beginnings  with  the  renascence  which  took  place 
in  the  IVth  Century,  the  age  which  is  indissolubly  con- 


LITERARY  SURVEY  3 1 5 

nected  in  Samaritan  tradition  with  the  fame  of  Baba 
Rabba.  The  movement  was  one  that  followed  after,  and 
was  a  close  parallel  to,  the  Rabbinic  activity  which  re- 
sulted in  the  Targums  and  Talmuds.  To  this  period,  and 
as  its  greatest  monument,  we  have  to  assign  the  Samar- 
itan Targum ;  vernacular  Semitism  was  again  raising  its 
head  against  Hellenic  influence,  and  asserted  to  itself  the 
right  of  translating  into  the  vernacular  the  obsolete  He- 
brew of  the  Scriptures.  As  contemporary  of  the  great  Sa- 
maritan reformer,  Marka  also  appears  in  the  IVth  Cen- 
tury, and  he  remains  the  most  prolific  and  influential  writer, 
both  in  theology  and  in  liturgical  composition.  The  Ara- 
maic period  lasted  down  towards  the  Xlth  Century,  when 
at  last  we  find  the  Arabic  influence  in  the  ascendant. 

C.       THE   ARABIC    PERIOD. 

The  conquests  of  Islam  disorganized  the  life  of  the  Sa- 
maritan community  and  diminished  whatever  strength  and 
spirit  it  possessed,  so  that  it  was  long  before  the  new  em- 
pire exerted  any  beneficial  effects  upon  the  intellectual  ac- 
tivity of  the  sect.  But  in  the  Xlth  Century  Abu'l  Chasan 
of  Tyre,  while  writing  hymns  in  the  Aramaic,  which  seems 
to  have  been  already  obsolete,  took  the  first  steps  towards 
the  rendering  of  the  Law  in  the  language  of  the  con- 
querors, and  also,  along  with  other  writers,  composed  trea- 
tises upon  the  native  laws.  In  the  following  century  ap- 
peared the  grammatical  work  of  Ibrahim  ibn  Faraj,  and 
the  theological  compositions  of  such  men  as  Munajja.  In 
the  Xlllth  Century  was  published  Abu  Said's  classical  and 
authoritative  Arabic  version  of  the  Scriptures.  The  ex- 
tensive Midrashic  Book  of  Joshua  was  compiled  about  the 
same  time.  In  the  XlVth  Century,  which  Cowley  con- 
siders the  age  of  "  a  sort  of  renascence  of  Samaritan  lit- 
erature," we  have  the  only  real  historical  work  coming 
from  a  Samaritan,  that  of  Abu'l  Fath,  and  also  the  bios- 


316  THE  SAMARITANS 

soming  of  a  rich  liturgical  activity,  which  has  continued  to 
our  own  time  but  with  accelerating  degeneracy.  As  late  as 
the  XVIIIth  Century  theological  literature  flourished;  we 
may  instance  the  commentary  of  Gazal  ibn  Abu(l)  Sarur. 
Since  that  time  no  important  work  has  appeared,  a  cessa- 
tion which  is  symptomatic  of  the  moribund  condition  of  the 
community. 

In  the  Arabic  period  the  priestly  family  at  Nablus  was 
a  school  of  learning,  at  least  of  that  very  conservative  or- 
der which  perpetuates  meagre  annals ;  it  was  also  the  home 
of  liturgical  composition.  But  the  real  intellectual  centres 
of  the  sect  were  in  Egypt  and  at  Damascus.  While  the 
Toledas  are  of  native  origin,  the  Book  of  Joshua  hails  from 
Egypt;  the  version  ascribed  to  Abu  Said  also  seems  to  have 
been  of  Egyptian  origin.82  To  Damascus  doubtless  be- 
longed the  grammarian  Ibrahim  ibn  Faraj,  at  least  his 
scholastic  connections  would  assign  him  to  that  city; 
there  also  flourished  Munajja  and  the  several  physician- 
theologians.  This  famous  centre  of  Islamic  culture  be- 
came the  centre  of  Samaritan  science,  as  Egypt  had  been 
of  the  Midrashic  literature  of  the  sect. 

82Juynboll,  Orientalia,  ii,  116;  Bloch,  Sam.  -arab.  Pentateuchuber- 
setzung,  16. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

A.       THE    NAME    "  SAMARIA." 

The  Ass)'rian  form  of  Shomeron,  fTlDtSN  is  Samerina, 
appearing  first  in  Tiglath-pileser's  inscriptions  (Layard, 
66,  18) ;  the  Aramaic  is  Shamerain,  the  Greek  ^afxapia 
'Say.apcLa.  The  relation  of  the  Hebrew  form  to  those  given 
by  foreign  sources  has  not  yet  been  explained.  The 
Hebrew  o  in  the  first  syllable  is  certainly  secondary,  the 
foreign  renderings  preserving  the  original  vowel  a.  As 
for  the  final  syllable,  both  -ain  and  -on  (also  -tin)  are  fre- 
quent terminations  in  Palestinian  place-names,  and  the  two 
suffixes  may  be  understood  as  original  alternatives  of  the 
name.  Or  -on  may  have  arisen  from  -an,  the  latter  by  dis- 
traction also  undergoing  a  parallel  change  into  -ain,  -en. 
Winckler  has  suggested  that  -on  (=  -un)  and  -ain  are  re- 
lated to  one  another  as  case-endings. 

As  for  the  foundation  of  the  city,  it  must  be  assumed 
that  the  hill  of  Shemer  was  an  ancient  settlement,  and  that 
Omri  bought  from  the  clan  inhabiting  it  the  land  he  re- 
quired for  his  buildings  and  fortifications;  see  Stade,  Der 
Name  der  Stadt  Samariens  und  seine  Herkunft,  ZATIV 
v,  165.  Compare  David's  transaction  with  Arauna  the 
Jebusite,  2  Sam.  24.  Shemer  seems  to  have  been  a  wide- 
spread clan-name,  appearing  as  a  clan  of  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
1  Ch.  6,  31,  and  of  Benjamin,  8,  12,  while  Shimron  is  a 
family  of  Issachar,  Gen.  46,  13,  etc.,  and  a  town  in  Zebu- 
lun,  Jos.  11,  1,  etc.  This  is  vocalized  in  Jos.  12,  20  by 
Cod.  A.  as  Samron  (cf.  19,  15),  which  would  be  the  same 
as  the  original  form  of  Omri's  foundation.  Thus  more 
than  one  town  "  Samaria  "  existed  on  the  early  map,  while 

317 


318  THE  SAMARITANS 

a  number  of  places  with  the  same  root  are  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  on  the  modern  map,  e.g.  Shamir,  the 
modern  Sumra,  in  Juda.  The  name  then  is  more  probably 
a  derivation  from  a  widespread  tribe-name,  than  a  local 
designation,  as  G.  A.  Smith  suggests,  rendering  Shomeron 
as  Wartburg,  Watch  Tower  (HG  346).  The  Greek  form 
recognizes  the  unessential  and  variable  character  of  the  last 
syllable  in  the  Hebrew  word.  Only  in  some  MSS  to  1  Ki. 
16,  24  and  2  Esdras  4,  10,  do  we  find  the  Massoretic  form 
imitated. 

B.       TH"E  NAMES  OF  THE  SAMARITANS. 

The  Samaritans  usurp  for  themselves  the  theocratic  name 
of  Israel.  They  allow  themselves  to  be  called  Samaritans 
only  with  a  play  upon  the  word.  The  word  they  use  is 
Samerim,  not  the  Old  Testament  Shomeronim,  2  Ki.  17, 
29,  which  they  never  employ.  Doubtless  the  word  is  the 
ancient  gentilic  for  the  place  of  Shemer;  cf.  the  origin  of 
^a/xapeia  from  the  latter,  not  from  Shomeron.  Samerim 
is  the  Samaritan  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  shomerim,  "  ob- 
servers," and  it  is  in  this  sense  the  Samaritans  use  the 
word  of  themselves ;  thus,  "  We  observe  the  holy  Law  and 
are  called  Observers,"  N.  ct  E.  163  (175),  or  because  they 
"  observe "  the  Sabbath,  ibid.  This  interpretation  is  an- 
cient. There  is  a  reference  to  it  in  the  Jewish  antagonist's 
assertion  that  "  there  are  no  keepers  of  the  Law  here  " 
{Choi.  6a;  above,  p.  191),  and  possibly  in  2  Chron.  13,  11. 
It  is  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  Fathers;  e.g.  Origen, 
Homil.  in  Ezcch.  ix,  1  (Migne  xiii,  73)  ;  Eusebius,  Chron. 
ii,  ami.  1270;  Jerome,  Epitaph.  Paula,  6  (M.  xxii,  887)  ; 
Epiphanius,  Hares,  i,  9 ;  etc. 

Perhaps  because  of  this  interpretation  the  Jews  rarely 
call  their  rivals  Samaritans;  exceptions  are  found  in  Aboda 
Zara  Jer.  44d;  Bereshit  R.  c.  32,  etc.  But  they  apply  to 
them  the  opprobrious  term  Kuthim,  as  though  they  were 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES  319 

identical  with  the  colony  imported  from  Babylon.  No  sat- 
isfactory explanation  has  been  given  for  the  choice  of  this 
special  name;  the  Kuthites  may  have  been  the  most  im- 
portant colony,  Sanballat  may  have  been  of  Kuthite  origin 
(so  Josephus),  etc.  The  Samaritan  explanation  of  this 
Jewish  epithet  is  that  their  ancestors,  returning  from  exile, 
came  into  a  certain  valley  named  Kutha  (Abu'l  Fath,  81). 
The  name  preferred  by  Josephus  for  the  sect  is,  very  ap- 
propriately, Shechemites.  In  this  connection  may  be  dis- 
cussed the  name  which  Josephus  alleges  was  used  by  the 
Samaritans  of  themselves  in  the  time  of  the  Antiochian 
persecution,  AJ  xii,  5,  5, —  that  of  Sidonians.  Michaelis 
would  derive  the  connection  from  an  assumed  Kutha  near 
Sidon  (Juynboll,  Hist.  Sam.  35).  I  would  suggest  that 
the  name  arose  from  the  attempt  of  Pagan  Samaritans  or 
renegade  members  of  the  sect  to  dissociate  themselves  from 
the  unpopular  Israelites,  by  connecting  Samaria  with  the 
Phoenician  Gimura  (Q-imur,  Simirra;  perhaps  modern  Su- 
mura),  appearing  in  Gen.  10,  18  in  the  gentilic  Qemari  and 
in  the  Greek  thereto  as  ^afiaptibs. 

C.       THE  FIRE-PURIFICATIONS  OF  THE  SAMARITANS. 

In  Lib.Jos.,  c.  xlvii,  sub  fin.,  the  plea  is  made  to  Hadrian 
that  the  Samaritans  "  are  accustomed  to  kindle  a  fire  wher- 
ever a  stranger  has  passed."  An  interesting  illustration 
of  this  is  given  by  Clermont-Ganneau  (Journal  des  savants, 
ii,  41),  who  adduces  the  following  quotation  from  An- 
tonin  de  Plaisance,  circa  600  A.  C.  (Gelzer,  Itinera  Hiero- 
solymitana,  164)  :  Descendentes  per  campestria,  ciuitates 
uel  uicos  Samaritanorum ;  et  per  plateas,  unde  transuimus 
siue  nos  siue  Iudsei,  cum  paleias  (sic)  vestigia  nostra  in- 
cendentes;  tanta  illis  est  execratio  utrisque.  A  reference 
to  the  same  custom  is  doubtless  contained  in  the  imperial 
prohibition  against  the  Samaritans  burning  or  destroying 
anything  with  fire,  cited  above,  p.  112.     This  is  the  most 


320  THE  SAMARITANS 

unique  custom  the  Samaritans  possess,  and  I  cannot  trace  its 
origin  except  to  the  universal  idea  of  the  purifying  power 
of  fire;  cf.  Is.  4,  4;  Mt.  3,  11.  According  to  Biruni 
(de  Sacy,  Chrest.  arabe,  i,  305)  the  Samaritan  religion  is 
a  compound  of  Judaism  and  Magism ;  the  latter  imputation 
may  refer  to  these  fire-practices,  but  probably  better  to  the 
legend  of  Simon  Magus.  Taglicht  adduces  {Die  Kuthaer, 
8)  a  Talmudic  passage,  Taanit,  5b,  where  the  Kutim  are 
called  fire-worshippers,  but  he  holds  that  the  context  de- 
mands EPTD*  "  the  people  of  Kittim." 

D.       THE   ALLEGED    DOVE-CULT    OF    THE    SAMARITANS. 

The  leading  question  in  the  early  investigation  of  the 
Samaritans  concerned  the  ancient  allegation  of  the  Jews 
that  the  Samaritans  worshipped  a  dove  on  Gerizim. 
Huntington's  inquiry  on  this  point  was  regarded  as  an  in- 
sult by  the  Samaritans;  upon  the  beginning  of  the  de  Sacy 
correspondence  Jewish  informants  still  made  the  same 
charge  against  the  sect  {N.  et  E.  nos.  1  and  ii ;  see  in 
general  de  Sacy's  introduction  to  the  volume,  and  Fried- 
rich,  De  Christologia  Samaritanorum;  Appendicula  de  co- 
lumba  dea  Samaritanorum).  The  accusation  is  now  gen- 
erally regarded  as  a  sheer  calumny,  and  the  question  has 
become  one  chiefly  of  archaeological  interest :  What  could 
have  been  the  origin  of  the  charge? 

The  Talmudic  assertion  of  the  accusation  belongs  to  the 
IVth  Century  (see  above,  p.  169).  In  the  interpretation 
given  by  Sanhedrin,  63b,  of  the  deities  worshipped  by  the 
colonists  of  2  Ki.  17,  no  reference  to  the  dove  is  found, 
although  the  deities  are  all  zoologically  explained.  The 
Fathers  are  entirely  silent  on  this  score.  The  only  point 
in  Samaritan  tradition  which  is  in  the  least  degree  perti- 
nent is  the  legend,  Lib.Jos.  c.  1,  concerning  a  brazen  bird 
placed  by  the  Romans  on  Gerizim,  which  on  the  approach 
of  a  Samaritan  cried  ibri,  i.e.  "  Hebrew,"  thus  warning  the 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES  321 

guards.  But  this  is  a  tradition  concerning  some  mechan- 
ical oracle,  of  a  kind  witnessed  to  for  antiquity.  Reland, 
in  his  dissertation  De  monte  Garizim,  has  carefully  exam- 
ined all  the  evidence  concerning  the  ancient  dove-cult. 
Selden,  De  dis  Syris,  syntag.  ii,  c.  3,  sub  fin.,  made  the 
happy  suggestion  that  the  cult  must  have  been  that  of  the 
goddess  Semiramis;  cf.  Diodorus  Sic.,  ii,  20;  Lucian,  De 
dea  Syria,  c.  14;  also  Tibullus  i,  8:  Alba  Palasstino  sacra 
columba.  Ronzevalle  has  recently  followed  up  Selden's 
theory  with  a  very  interesting  identification.  In  his  ar- 
ticle, Inscription  bilingue  de  Deir  el-Qala'a,  in  Revue  arche- 
ologique,  1893,  p.  29,  he  has  put  forth  much  evidence  for 
the  existence  of  a  goddess,  Sima  or  Shima,  whom  he  iden- 
tifies on  the  one  hand  with  Semiramis,  on  the  other  hand 
with  the  Ashima  of  2  Ki.  17.  He  suggests  therefore  that 
the  Jewish  accusation  against  the  Samaritans  may  go  back 
to  the  actual  cult  of  the  Hamathite  deity  Semiramis,  under 
the  form  of  a  dove,  practised  by  the  Hamathite  colony  in 
Samaria.  On  the  other  hand  this  cult  may  have  been  in- 
troduced much  later,  in  the  age  of  Hadrian  or  subsequent 
syncretizing  emperors.  But  to  sum  up,  there  is  nothing  to 
show  for  the  legend  that  the  Samaritan  sect  itself  ever 
worshipped  the  dove. 

ADDENDUM. 

To   p.    19.     W.    Max    Miiller   thinks    it   probable   that 
Shechem    (Skmm)    should  be  read  in  the  narrative  of  a 
Syrian  campaign  of  Usertesen  III.  of  the  Xllth  Dynasty; 
see  Orientalistische  Litteratur-Z eitnng,  1903,  col.  448. 
21 


SAMARITAN  BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

(This  list  is  necessarily  confined,  with  some  few  excep- 
tions, to  books  and  articles  dealing  particularly  zvith  Samari- 
tan subjects.  General  zvorks,  Histories,  Introductions,  etc., 
have  been  cited  above  in  proper  place. ) 

Abbot,    Ezra :     In   Smith's   Bible  Dictionary,   Amer.    ed. 

1872-3,  s.  v.  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 
Adler,  E.  N.    and  Seligsohn,  M. :     Une  nouvelle  chro- 

nique  samaritainc. —  REJ   1902,   AP1-.-1903,  Jan.;   in 

extract.  Paris,  1903. 
Almkvist,     H. :     Ein    samaritanischer    Brief    an    Konig 

Oscar.     In   Skriftcr   utgifna    af   k.    human.     Vetens- 

kapssamfundet  i  Upsala,  vol.  v,  No.  2.     Upsala,  1897. 

(With  facsimile,  and  an  alphabetic  table  by  Euting.) 
Appel,  M. :    Qucestiones  de  rebus  Samaritanorum  sub  im- 

perio  Romano  peractis.     Breslau,  1874. 

Baneth,  H. :     Dcs  Samaritaners  Marqah  an  die  22  Buch- 

staben    den     Grundstock     der     hebrdischen    Sprache 

ankniipfende  Abhandlung.     Heft  i.     Berlin,  1888. 
Barges,  J.  J.  L. :    Lcs  Samaritains  de  Naplouse.    Episode 

d'une  pelerinage  dans  les  lieux  saints.     Paris,    1855. 

(Appeared  originally  in  Revue  de  V  Orient,  i  (1855), 

81.) 
Notice  sur  deux  fragments  d'un  Pentateuqe  hebreu- 

samaritain.      Paris,      1865.       (Noticed     by     Vilmar, 

ZDMG  xxi,  288.) 
Barton,    W.    E. :     The   Samaritan    Pentateuch. —  Biblio- 

theca  Sacra,  lx    (1903),   601.     (With  a   list  of  the 

MSS  at  Nablns.) 

322 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  323 

History    and    Religion    of    the    Samaritans.     By 

Jacob,  son  of  Amram,  High  Priest  of  the  Samaritans 
at  Shechem. —  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  lxxvi  (1906),  385. 
(To  be  continued;  written  by  present  highpriest  in 
1885.) 

(Bengers,  T.)  :  Samaritan  and  Syriack  Alphabets  with 
a  Praxis  to  each.     London,  18 14. 

Berens,  B. :  Gentis  Samaritance  historiam  et  ceremonias 
proponit.     Halle,  1694. 

Bernard,  E. :  Excerpta.  In  Acta  eruditorum  Lipsien- 
shim,  1 69 1.  (Chronological  summary  of  Abu'l  Fath, 
and  table  of  highpriests.  Bernard  gave  the  transla- 
tion of  the  Epistle  of  1672  appearing  in  Ludolf,  Epis- 
tolce  Samaritance.) 

Bjornstahl,  J.  J. :  Uebcr  eine  samaritanische  Triglotte 
in  der  Barberinischen  Bibliothek. —  Eichhorn's  Reper- 
torium,  iii  (1778),  84. 

Blau,  O. :  Der  Dckalog  in  eincr  samaritanisclien  Inschrift 
aus  dem  Tempel  des  Garizim. —  ZDMG  xiii  (1859), 
275-      (With  notes  by  Rodiger.) 

Blayney,  B. :  Pcntateuchits  Hebrceo-Samaritanus.  Ox- 
ford, 1790. 

Bloch,  J.  S. :  Die  samarifanisch-arabische  Pcntatcuch- 
ilbersetzung  Dent,  i-xi  nach  Handschriften  nnd  Notcn. 
Berlin,  1901. 

Bowring,    J. :     Samaria    and    the    Samaritans.     London, 

i837-    " 
Bruell,    A. :     Das   samaritanische    Tar  gum   zuin   Penta- 
teuch.    With   Kritischc  Studien   iiber  samaritanische 
Manuscript-Fragmente  des  samaritanisclien   Targums 
in  Oxford.     Frankfurt,  1875. 

Zur   Geschichte   und   Literatnr   der   Samaritaner. 

Frankfurt,  1876. 

Bruns,   P.  J. :     Epistola  samaritana  Sichemitarum   tertia 


324  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ad  Iobum  Ludolfum.     Helmstadt,  1781.     Republished 
in  Eichhorn's  Repcrtorium,  xiii  (1783),  277. 

Ueber  die  Samaritcr.     In  Staudlin's  Bcytrage  zur 


Philosophie  und  Geschichte  dcr  Religion  und  Sitten- 

lehrc,  i,  78.     Lubeck,  1797. 
Buechler,  A. :     Lcs  Dositheens  dans  le  Midrasch. —  REJ 

xlii,  220;  xliii,  50. 
Burton,    H. :     Christ    and    the   Samaritans. —  Expositor, 

1877,  p.  186. 

Capellus,  L. :     Diatriba  de  veris  et  antiquis  Hcbrceorum 

Uteris.     1645. 
Castellus,  E. :     (editor  of  the  Samaritan  Targum  in  the 

London  Polyglot,  with  Animadversiones,  vol.  vi.) 
Lexicon  heptaglotton,   etc.     Cum   omnium  gram- 

maticis.     London,   1669. 
Cellarius   (Zeller),  C. :     Horcc  samaritance,  hoc  est,  ex- 

cerpta  Pentateuchi  Samaritance  versionis  .  .  .    ctiam 

Grammatica  Samaritana.     Zeitz,  1682;  2d  ed.  1705. 

Collectanea  histories  Samaritance  quibus  prater  res 

geographicas,  tarn  politia  hujus  gentis,  qnam  rcligio 
et  res  litter  aria  explicantur.  Zeitz,  1688;  also  in  Ugo- 
lini,  Thesaurus,  xxii. 

Historia  gentis  et  religionis  Samaritance.     Halle, 

1699. 

Exercitatio,  gentis  Samaritance  historiam  et  cccri- 


monias,  post  ejusdem  auctoris  collectanea  histories  Sa- 
maritance,  magis  illustrans.     Halle,    1707.      (An   edi- 
tion  of   Cellarius's   works   was   published   by   Walch, 
Leipzig,  1712.) 
Clermont-Ganneau,  C. :     Extrait  d'une  lettre  de  M.  C. 

G relative  aux  residtats  de  ses  excursions;  in 

Comptcs  rendus  des  premiers  residtats  de  ses  excur- 
sions. In  Comptcs  rendus  de  V  Academic  des  Inscrip- 
tions et  Belles  Lett  res.     Ser.  iv.  vol.  ix  (1881),  186. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  325 

—  Rapports  sur  une  mission  en  Palestine  et  en  Phe- 
nicie  entreprise  en  1881.  In  Archives  des  missions  sci- 
entffiques  et  littcraires.  Ser.  iii.  vol.  ix  (1882),  292; 
vol.  xi  (1885),  211  (with  plate).  (These  three  ar- 
ticles report  the  first  Emmaus  inscription.) 

—  Une  nouvclle  chronique  samaritaine. —  Journal  des 
Savants,  ii  (1904),  34.  (Review  of  Adler  and  Selig- 
sohn.) 

Inscription  samaritaine  de  Gaza,  etc. —  Revue  bib- 


lique,  1906,  p.  84. 
Cohn,    N. :     Die    Zaraath-Gesetze    dcr    Bibel    nach    dem 

Kitab    al-KaH    des   Jusuf   Ibn    Salamah.     Frankfurt, 

1899. 
Conder,  C.  R. :     Samaritan  Topography. —  PEFQS  1876, 

p.  182. 

Samaritan  Customs. —  Ibid.     1887,  p.  233. 

■ and    Kitchener,    H.    H. :     Survey    of    Western 

Palestine  Memoirs.    Vol.  ii.  Samaria.    London,  1882. 
Cowley,   A.   E. :     The  Samaritan  Liturgy,   and  Reading 

of  the  Law. — JQR  vii  (1894),  121. 
The  Samaritan  Doctrine  of  the  Messiah. — Expos- 
itor, 1895,  p.  161. 

Some  Remarks  on  Samaritan  Literature  and  Reli- 
gion.—  JQR  viii  (1896),  562.  • 

in  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  s.  vv.  Samaria,  Samari- 
tans (1903). 

Description  of  Four  Samaritan  Manuscripts  Be- 
longing to  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund. —  PEFQS 
1904,  p.  67. 

Samaritana.     I.  Samaritan  Dealings  with  the  Jews 

based  on  Samaritan  Fragments  from  Cairo  Genizas. 
II.  An  Alleged  (early)  Copy  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch.—  JQR  xvi  (1904),  474. 

A  Supposed  Early  Copy  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 


326  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

tench. —  PEFQS  1904,  p.  394.     (On  the  same  MS  as 
the  previous  article.) 

In  JE  (1905),  s.  v.  Samaritans. 


Crane,  O.  T. :     The  Samaritan  Chronicle  or  the  Book  of 

Joshua.     New  York,  1890  (Alden,  pub.). 
Crinesius,    C. :     Lingua    Samaritica    ex   Scriptura    sacra 

Udeliter  eruta.     Altdorf  (undated). 
Curtiss,    S.    I. :     in   Primitive   Semitic   Religion    To-day. 

Chicago,   1902.     App.  F. :     The  Samaritan  Passover. 

(Description  by  an  educated  Syrian  of  the  Passover 

in  1900.) 

Deutsch,  E. :    in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  Eng.  ed.,  s.  v. 

Samaritan  Pen tateuch. 
Drabkin  :     Fragmenta     commentarii     ad     Pentateuchum 

Samaritano-Arabici  sex.     Breslau,  1875. 
Dresde,    F.    W. :     De    usu    Pentatcuchi    Samaritani    ad 

emendandam  lectionem  Hcbr.     1783. 

Eckstein  :  Geschichte  und  Bedeutung  der  Stadt  Sichem. 
Berlin,  1886. 

Emmerich,  L. :  Das  Siegeslied,  eine  Schrifterklarung  des 
Samaritaners  Marqah.    Berlin,  1897. 

Euting,  J. :  Epigraphischc  Miscellcn.  In  Sitzungsbc- 
richte  der  Preussischen  Akademie,  1885,  p.  679  (treat- 
ing of  Emmaus  inscription). 

Falconer,  R.  A. :     Is  2d  Peter  a  Genuine  Epistle  to  the 

Churches  of  Samaria?  —  Expositor,  1902,  p.  459. 
Freudenthal,  J. :     Alexander   Polyhistor    und    die    von 

ihm  erhaltenen  Reste  judaischer  und  samaritanischer 

Geschichtszverke.     Breslau,   1875. 
Friedrich,  G.  C. :     Discussionum  de  christologia  Samari- 

tanorum  liber.     Accedit  appendicula  de  columba  dea 

Samaritanorum.     Leipzig,  1821. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  327 

Fuerst,  J. :  Zur  Different  zwischen  Juden  und  Samari- 
tanern. —  ZDMG  xxxv  (1881),  132. 

von  Gall,  A. :  Ankilndigung  einer  neuen  Ausgdbe  des 
hebrdischen  Pcntatcuchs  der  Samaritaner. —  ZATW 
xxvi  (1906),  293. 

Garratt  (Canon):  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. —  J  own. 
Trans,  of  Victoria  Institute,  xxxvi,  197. 

Gaster,  M. :  A  Samaritan  Scroll  of  the  Hebrew  Penta- 
teuch.—  PSBA  xxii  (1900),  240. 

The  Hebrew  Illuminated  Letters  of  the  IXth  and 

Xth  Centuries,  and  a  Samaritan  Scroll  of  the  Xlth 
Century.     8  Plates  in  gold  and  colors.     1901. 

Geiger,  A. :  Zur  Thcologic  und  Schrifterklarung  der  Sa- 
maritaner.—  ZDMG  xii  (1858),  132. 

Ncucrc    Mitthcilungen    iiber    die    Samaritaner. — 

ZDMG  xvi  (1862),  714  (criticism  of  DVJ  i)  ;  xviii, 
590;  813  (with  revised  text  and  translation  of  Prayer 
of  Ab-Gelugah)  ;  xix,  601;  xx,  143;  xxi,  169  (text 
and  translation  of  Litany  of  Marka)  ;  xxii,  528. 

Die  hebraische  Grammatik  bei  den  Samaritanern. — 

ZDMG  xvii  (1863),  718. 

Samaritanische  Lesarten  in  der  Halachah. —  JZW 

iv,  42. 

(Interpretation  of  "  Libonaean.") — JZW  v,  115. 

Die  zesctzlichcn   Diffcrenzen  zwischen   Samarita- 


nern  und  Juden. —  ZDMG  xx  ( 1866),  527. 
Gesenius,  W. :     De  Pentateuchi  Samaritani  origine,  indole 
et  auctoritate  commentatio  philologica-critica.     Halle, 

l8l5- 

De  Samaritanorum  theologia  ex  fontibus  ineditis 

commentatio.     Halle,  1823. 

Carmina  Samaritana  c  codicibus  Londinensibus  et 

Gothanis    (Anecdota    orientalia,    fasc.    i).      Leipzig, 
1824. 


328  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Gottheil,  R. :  Syriac  and  Assyrian. —  Hebraica,  iii 
(1887),  187. 

The  Method  of  Dating  Samaritan  Manuscripts. — 

JBL  xxv  (1906),  29. 

Grimm,    J. :     Die    Samariter    und   Hire    Stellung    in    der 

Weltgeschichte.     Munich,  1854. 
Grove,  G. :     Nabloos  and  the  Samaritans,  in  F.  Galton, 

Vacation  Tourists,  p.  336.     London,  1862. 
Gruenbaum,  M. :     Zu  Awarta. —  ZDPV  vi  (1883),  195. 

Nachtragliches  zu  Nabidus  und  Garizim. —  ZDPV 

vii  (1884),  131. 

Guerin,  M.  V. :  Description  geographique,  historique 
et  archeologique  de  la  Palestine:  2me  partie,  Samarie. 
Paris,  1875. 

Halevy,  J. :  Melanges  de  critique  et  d'histoire.  Paris, 
1883.      (No.  xv  on  "  Libonaean.") 

Hall,  I.  H. :  On  a  Manuscript  Fragment  of  the  Sa- 
maritan Pentateuch. —  JAOS  xi  (1885),  Proc.  p.  lxix. 

Hamaker,  H. :  Aanmerkingen  over  de  Samaritanen,  en 
hunne  Briefwisslung  mit  eenige  Europesche  Geleer- 
den:  tcr  Gelegenheid  von  eenen  nog  onbekenden  Sa- 
maritaanschen  Brief.  In  Archief  von  Kerkelijke 
Geschiedenis,  v.     Amsterdam,  1834. 

Hamburger,  J. :     In  REJud  vols,  i,  ii,  s.  v.  Samaritaner. 

Hammond  :  The  Samaritan  Passover  of  the  Year  1861. — 
Journ.  Trans,  of  Victoria  Institute,  xxxvi,  213. 

Hanover,  S. :  Das  Festgesetz  der  Samaritaner  nach  Ibra- 
him ibn  Jakub.  Edition  und  Uebersetzung  seines 
Kommentars  zu  Lev.  23.     Berlin,  1904. 

Harkavy,  A.  J. :  The  Collection  of  Samaritan  MSS 
at  St.  Petersburg.  Appendix  to  Nutt,  Sam.  Targ., 
1874. 

Catalog     der     hcbr'dischen     und    samaritanischen 

Handschriftcn    der    kais.    offentl.    Bibliothek    in    St. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  329 

Petersburg.     Vol.    ii.     Die    samaritanischen      Penta- 
teuchhandscliriften.     Theil   i.     St.    Petersburg,    1875. 
(In  Russian.) 
Heidenheim,  M. :     Untersuchung  i'lber  die  Samaritaner. — 
DVJi,9;s74. 

Schreiben  Meschalmah  ben  Ab  Scchuah's  an  die 

Samaritaner. —  DVJ  i,  78. 

Die  Liter atur  der  Samaritaner. —  DVJ  i,  279;  421. 

Eine  samaritanische  Hymne. —  DVJ  i,  290. 

Ueber  den  Gebrauch  von   I'Ht?  und  'HtW. —  DVJ 

i,  406. 

Fragmente  des  Pentateuchs  in  der  samaritanischen 

Litnrgie.     Genesis. —  DVJ  i,  563. 

Der  Traum  des  Priesters  Abischa. —  DVJ  ii,  81. 

(Cf.  Petermann,  Gramm.,  Chrestom.  24.) 

Gebet  Ab  Gelugah's. —  DVJ  ii,  213. 

Appendix     zu     Gesenius'     Carmina     Samaritana. 

—  DVJ  ii,  460. 

Die  Litanei  Markas. —  DVJ  ii,  472. 

Nachrichten  fiber  die  Samaritaner  aus  einem  hand- 

schriftlichen  Reisejournale  aus  dem  15.  Jahrhundert. — 
DVJ  iii,  354- 

Samaritanische  Passahlieder. —  DVJ  iii,  357;  475- 

Wer  war  Symmachus? — DVJ  iii,  463. 

Der  Dekalog  in  der  samaritanischen  Liturgie. — 

DVJ  iii,  486. 

Des  Hohenpriesters  Pinchas  Gebet  fur  die  samari- 
tanische Neumondsfeier. —  DVJ  iii,  488. 

Samaritanische  Festhymnen. —  DVJ  iv,  no.  (In- 
cluding the  Midrash  des  Priesters  Abraham,- and  the 
Midrash  des  Priesters  Tobiahs. ) 

Zur  Logoslehre  der  Samaritaner. —  DVJ  iv,  126. 

Bemerkungen  zu  den  Legenden  Mosis. —  DVJ  iv, 


212.     (Notes  to  Leitner's  translation.) 


330  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Gebete  der  samaritanischen  Hohenpriester  Markah 


und  Amram. —  DVJ  iv,  237. 

Erklarungen  schwicriger  Stellen  des  samarita- 
nischen Tar  gums. —  DVJ  iv,  247. 

Die   samaritanische    Chronik    des    Hohenpriester s 

Elasar  aus  dem  11.  J  ahrhundert ,  ubersetzt  und  er- 
kl'drt. —  DVJ  iv,  347.  (The  same  as  the  Chronicle 
Neubauer,  published  two  years  earlier,  and  unknown 
to  Heidenheim.  A  Beilage  gives  a  comparison  of  the 
highpriestly  tables  in  this  chronicle  and  in  Abu'l  Fath.) 

—  Gebete  des  Hohenpriesters  Amram. —  DVJ  iv,  390. 
(Three  hymns  with  text  and  translation.) 

—  Zur  samaritanischen  Angelologie  und  Astrologie. 
Ein  samaritanische s  Gebet. —  DVJ  iv,  544. 

—  Bibliotheca  Samaritana:  i.  Die  samaritanische 
Pentateuch-Version.  Die  Genesis  .  .  .  iinter  Benutz- 
ung  der  barberinischen  Triglotte.  Leipzig,  1884.  ii. 
Die  samaritanische  Liturgie.  Leipzig,  1885.  iii. 
Der  Commentar  Marqah's  des  Samaritaners. 
Weimar,  1896. 

Ueber  die  Wichtigkeit  der  samaritanischen  Litera- 


tar.      In     V  erhandlungen     der     29.      Vcrsammlung 

deutscher  Philologen  und  Sclmlmdnner  in  Zurich,  1887. 

Leipzig,  1888;  p.  148. 
Hessey,  J.   A. :     In   Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  Eng.   ed., 

.?.  v.  Samaria. 
Hildesheimer,   M. :     Marqah's  Buch  der   Wunder  nach 

einer  Berliner  Handschrift.     Berlin,  1898. 
Hilgenfeld,  A. :     Der  Taheb  der  Samaritcr,  nach  einer 

neu  aufgefundenen   Urkunde. —  Zeitschr.   f.    Wissen- 

schaftl.  Theologie,  xxxvii  (1894),  233.     (With  Nach- 

trag,  ibid.  1895,  p.  156,  acknowledging  Heidenheim's 

priority  in  publication  of  the  hymn.) 
Hilliger,  J.  W. :     Summarium  lingua:  Aramcca  i.e.  Chal- 

dcco-Syrosamaritana.     Leipzig,  171 1   (?). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  331 

Hoffmann,    G. :      Lexicalischcs.      yy\  DrD      und     irD 
nWD^—  ZATW  i  (1881),  p.  334.    p^B,  p3^,«6td. 

»,  53- 
Hottinger,    J.    H. :     Exercitationes    anti-Moriniance    de 

Pentatcucho  Samaritano.     Zurich,  1644. 
Smegma  orientate.     Heidelberg,    1658.     (P.    437, 

discussion  of  Book  of  Joshua.) 

Dissertationum    thcologico-philologicarum   fascicu- 


lus Hi:  De  translationibus  Bibliorum  in  varias  linguas 
vernaculas.     Zurich,  1660. 

Houbigant,  C.  F. :  Biblia  Hebraica.  Paris,  1753;  2d 
ed.,  Frankfurt,  1774.  (Containing  Samaritan  vari- 
ants. ) 

Hug,  J.  L. :  Bcitrdge  zur  Geschichte  dcs  samaritanischen 
Pentatcuchs. —  Freyburger  ZeitscJirift,  1834,  No.  vii. 

Hupfeld,  H. :  Beleuchtung  dunkler  Stellen  alttestamentl. 
Text  geschichte. —  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  i 
(1830),  247.  (P.  289  for  the  Rabbinic  names  for  the 
Samaritan  and  Jewish  scripts.) 

Huxley,  H.  M. :  in  JE  x,  1674.  (On  Samaritan  an- 
thropology. ) 

Hwiid,  A.  C. :  Specimen  ineditce  versionis  Arabico-Sa- 
maritance  Pentateuchi  e  codice  manuscripto  Bibliothecce 
Barberince.     Rome,  1780. 

Jastrow,  M.,  Jr.:     On  Assyrian  and  Samaritan. —  JAOS 

xiii,  Proc.  p.  cxlvi. 
Juynboll,  T.  G.  J. :     Commentatio  de  versione  Arabico- 

Samaritana  et  de  scholiis  qua:  codicibus  Parisiensibus 

no.    2   et   4   adscripta   sunt.     In    Orientalia,    ii,    115. 

Amsterdam,  1846. 

Commentarii    in     historiam    gentis    Samaritance. 

Leyden,  1846. 

Chronicon  Samaritanum,  arabice  conscriptum,  cui 

titulus  est  Liber  Josucc.     Leyden,  1848. 


2,7,2  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Kahle,  P. :  Textcritische  und  lexicalische  Bcmerkungen 
sum  samaritanischcn  Pcntatcuchtargiim.  Leipzig, 
1898. 

Fragmente  des  samaritanischen  Pentateuciitargums, 

herausgegeben  und  crlautcrt. —  Zeitschrift  f.  Assyri- 
ologie,  xvi  (1902),  No.  1;  xvii,  No.  1. 

Die    arabisclicn    Bibelubersetzungen.     Tcxte    nut 


Glossar  und  Literaturiibersicht.    Leipzig,  1904.     (With 
specimen  of  the  Samaritan-Arabic  Pentateuch,  p.  25.) 
Kautzsch,    E. :     in    Riehm's    Hcmdworterbuch    dcs    bibl. 
Alterthums,  1884,  s.  v.  Samaritaner. 

in  RE2  xiii  (1884),  s.  v.  Samaritaner. 

in  RE3  xvii  (1906),  ditto. 

Ein    Brief    des    Hohenpriesters    der    Samaritaner 

Ja'kub  ibn  Harnn. —  ZDPV  viii  (1885),  149. 

Kennicott,  S. :  The  State  of  the  Printed  Hebrew  Text 
of  the  Old  Testament  Considered:  Dissertation  the 
Second,  wherein  the  Samaritan  Copy  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  vindicated,  etc.     Oxford,  1759. 

Vetus   Tcstamentum  Hebraicum.     Oxford,    1776- 

1780.  (Giving  Samaritan  variants.  Also  see  Disser- 
tatio  generalis,  at  end.) 

Kirch heim,  R. :  Septem  libri  Talmudici  parvi  Hicro- 
solymitani,  quos  nunc  primum  secundum  M's  e  biblio- 
theca  clarissimi  Carmolii  edidit  in  eosque  comment- 
arium  composuit.  Frankfurt,  185 1.  (In  Hebrew, 
and  with  Hebrew  title-page.) 

Introductio   in  librum   Talmudicum   "  de  Samari- 

tanis."  Frankfurt,  185 1.  (In  Hebrew  with  Hebrew 
title-page:  Karme  Shomron,  Contains  historical 
sketch  of  the  Samaritans,  with  a  letter  of  Luzzato  on 
the  Samaritan  script,  a  Hebrew  translation  of  the  Book 
of  Joshua,  a  reproduction  of  Gesenius's  Carmina  Sa- 
maritana,  with  independent  notes,  etc.) 

Klumel,  M. :     Mischpatim.     Ein    samaritanisch-arabisch- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  333 

er  Commentar  su  Ex.  21-22,  75  von  Ibrahim  ibn 
Jakub.     Berlin,  1902. 

Knobel,  A.:    Zur  Geschichte  dcr  Samaritaner.     1846. 

Koenig,  E. :  in  DB  Extra  Vol.  68,  s.  v.  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch. 

Kohn,  S. :  Beitrdge  zur  samaritanischen  Pentateuch- 
Uebersetsung    und    Lexicographic — MGWJ,    1856- 

i857. 

De  Pentateucho  Samaritano   ejusque  cum  versio- 

nibns  antiquis  nexo  dissertatio  inauguralis.  Leipzig, 
1865. 

Samaritanische  Studien,  Breslau,  1868.  (En- 
larged from  the  articles  in  MGWJ,  1856-7.) 

Zur  Sprache,  Literatur  und  Dogmatik  dcr  Samari- 
taner. i.  Aus  einer  Pessach-Haggadah  der  Samari- 
taner. ii.  Das  Samaritanische  Targum.  iii.  Die 
Petersburger  Fragmcntc  des  samaritaniscJien  Targum. 
In  Abhandlungen  filr  die  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes. 
Leipzig,  1876.      (Reviewed  by  Noldeke,  ZDMG  xxx, 

343-) 

Zur  neuesten  Litteratur  iiber  die  Samaritaner. — 

ZDMGxxxix  (1885),  165. 

Die    samaritanische    P entateuchiibersetzung    nach 

der  Ausgabe  von  Petermann  und  V oilers. —  ZDMG 
xlvii  (1893),  626. 

Samarcitikon  und  Septuaginta. —  MGWJ  xxxviii 


(1894),  pp.  1,  49. 
Krauss,     S. :    Dosithee    et    les    Dosithecns. —  REJ    xlii 

(1901),  27. 
Kuenen,  A. :     Gcneseos  libri  cap.  xxxiv  priora  ex  Ara- 

bica  Pentatcuchi  Samaritani  versione.     Leyden,  1851. 

(Dissertation  for  doctorate.) 
Liber   Gcneseos  secundum  Arabicam   Pentatcuchi 

Samaritani  versionem.     Leyden,    1851.     Libri  Exodi 

et  Levitici,  etc.     Leyden,  1854. 


334  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Lagrange,  M.  J. :  Deconverte  d'une  inscription  en  char- 
acter es  samaritains  a  Amouas. —  Revue  illustree  de  la 
Terre  Sainte,  1890,  p.  339.  L'  inscription  samaritaine 
d'  Amouas.  Ibid.  1891,  p.  83.  (Announcement  of 
Lagrange's  first  Emmaus  inscription.) 

Inscription  samaritaine  d'Amiuas. — Revue  biblique, 

ii  (1893),  114. 

Lee,  S. :     Samaritan  Hebrew  text  in  Biblia  Sacra  Poly- 

glotta.     London,  1831. 
Leitner  :     Die    samaritanischen    Legenden    Mosis.     Aus 

der  arab.  Handschrift  des  Britischen  Museums  iiber- 

setzt.—  DVJ  iv,   185. 
Levysohn  :     (Russian  translation,  and  facsimile,  with  in- 
troduction, of  a  Nablus  MS  of  Ex.  20.     Noticed  by 

Abbot,  Smith's  Bible  Diet,  iv,  2812.) 
Lincke,  K. :     Samaria  und  seine  Propheten.     Tubingen, 

1903. 
Loewe,    (E.    ?)  :     Correspondence    from    Nablus,   in  All- 

gemeine  Zeitung  des  ludentliums,  iii  (1839),  Nos.  36, 

39,  46,  47,  50,  56. 
Loewy,  A. :     The  Samaritans  in  Tahmidical  Writings. — 

PSBA,  1879,  Dec.  p.  11. 

An  Account  given  by  a  Samaritan,  in  A.  D.  1713, 

of  the  Ancient  Copy  of  the  Pentateuch  at  Nablus. — 
Ibid.  p.  13.  (Being  a  certification  of  a  formal  inspec- 
tion of  the  sacred  codex.) 

le  Long'  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Paris,  1723.  (P.  541, 
translation  of  Kuenen's  MS  C  of  Arabic  Pentateuch.) 

Ludolf,  J. :  Epistolcu  Samaritance  Sichemitarum  ad 
Jobum  Ludolfum.  Cum  ejusdem  Latina  versione  et 
annotationibus.  Accedit  versio  Latina  persimilium 
liter  arum  a  Sichemitis  hand  it  a  pridem  ad  Anglos 
datarum.     Zeitz,    1688. 

(Ludovici,  C.  H.)  :  Tar  gum  Shomroni  de  Sephcr  Bere- 
shit.     Halle,    1758.      (Hebrew    title.     Contains    Gen. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  335 

1-18  of  the  Sam.  Pentateuch  from  the  London  Poly- 
glot, cc.  1-3  in  Samaritan  script.) 
Ludwich,  A. :     De  Theodoti  carmine  Grceco-Iudaico  com- 
mentatio.     Konigsberg,  1899. 

Macewen:     (a  visit  to  the  Samaritan  Passover.) — Good 

Words,  1894,  p.  50. 
Macler,    F. :     Note  sur  une   nouvelle   manuscript   d'une 

chronique  samaritaine. — RE  J  1905,  p.  76. 
Margoliouth,  G. :     Descriptive  List  of  the  Hebrew  and 

Samaritan   MSS   of   the   British   Museum.     London, 

1893. 

An    Ancient    MS    of    the   Samaritan    Liturgy. — 

ZDMG  li  (1897),  499. 

Catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  MSS  in 

the  British  Museum.     Part  I.     London,  1899. 

An  Early  Copy  of  the  Samaritan  Hebrezv  Penta- 


teuch.— JQR  xv  (1903),  632. 
Masclef,     F. :     Grammatica    Hebraica.     Accessunt    tres 

grammatics,  Chaldaica,  Syriaca  et  Samaritana.    26.  ed. 

Paris,  1743. 
Mazade,    C. :     Dissertation   sur   Vorigine,    Vage   et   I'etat 

critique  du  Pentateuque  samaritain.     Geneva,  1830. 
Merx,  A.  J. :     Carmina  Samaritana  e  codice  Gothano.     In 

Atti  delta  Reale  Accademia  dei  Lincei;  iii,  1,  p.  550; 

2,  p.  161.     Rome,  1887. 

Ein  samaritanisches  Fragment  iiber  den  Ta'eb  oder 

Messias.  In  Actes  du  Huiticme  Congrcs  Interna- 
tional des  Orientalistes  tenu  en  i88p  a  Stockholm  et 
a  Christiania:     lime  partie,  section  i,  p.  119.     Leyden, 

1893. 

Samaritanisch.     In    Bansch-Drugulin,    Marksteine 

aus  der  Weltlitteratur.  Leipzig,  1902.  (Portion  of 
Passover  liturgy,  with  transcription  and  interpreta- 
tion.) 


336  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Millius,  S. :     De  caussis  odii  Judceos  inter  at  que  Samari- 

tanos.     Leyden,    1743.     (No.   xiv.    of   Dissertationes 

selectee. ) 
Mills,  J. :     Three  Months  Residence  at  Nablus,  and  an 

Account  of  the  Modern  Samaritans.     London,   1864. 

(With  account  of  the  Passover.) 
Montgomery,  J.  A. :     Notes  from  the  Samaritan. —  JBL 

xxv  (1906),  49. 

Were   the  Samaritans   Worthy   or   Unworthy?  — 

Sunday  School  Times,  1906,  p.  383. 

Moore,  G.  F. :  On  a  Fragment  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch in  the  Library  of  the  And  over  Theological  Semi- 
nary.—  JAOS  xiv  (1890),  Proc.  p.  xxxv.  (This  MS 
has  since  been  removed.) 

Morinus,  J.:  (in  edition  of  the  LXX,  Paris,  1628,  read- 
ings of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.) 

Exercitationes  ecclesiasticce  in   utrumque  Samari- 

tanorum  Pentateuchum.  De  illorum  religione  ct  mori- 
ons, etc.     Paris,  1631. 

(Editor  of  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  Paris  Poly- 
glot, 1645.  But  for  the  date,  see  v.  Gall,  ZATW 
1906,  p.  293.) 

Opuscnla  Hebrceo-Samaritica.     With   Grammatica 

Samaritana,  and  Lexicon  Samaritaniim.     Paris,  1657. 

translation    of    Samaritan    Epistles    to    Scaliger, 


posthumously  published  in  R.  Simon,  Antiqmtatcs  ec- 
clesice  orientalis.     London,  1682.) 
Moulton,  W.  J. :     The  Samaritan  Passover. —  JBL  xxii 
(1903),  187. 

Das     samaritanische     Passahfest. —  ZDPV     xvii 

(1904),  194. 

de  Muis,   S. :     Assertatio  veritatis  Hebraiccc  adversus  J. 
Morini  Exercitationes.     1631. 

Assertatio  altera.     1634. 

Castigatio  animadversionum  Morini.     1639. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  337 

Munk,  E. :  Des  Samaritaners  Marqah  Ersahlung  iiber 
den  Tod  Mosis.     Konigsberg,  1890. 

Musil,  A. :  Sicben  samaritanische  Inschriften  aus  Da- 
maskus.  In  Sitzungsberichte  der  kaiserl.  Akademie 
der  Wisscnschaftcn  in  Wicn,  cxlvii,  i.  Vienna,  1903. 

Nestle,  E. :  Zu  den  samaritanischen  Typen. —  ZDMG 
lvii  (1903),  568. 

Neubauer,  A. :  CJironique  samaritaine,  suivie  d'un  Ap- 
pendice  contenant  de  courts  notices  snr  qnelques  autres 
ouvrages  samaritains. —  Journal  asiatique,  1869,  385. 
(Reprinted  in  1873  as  extract  No.  14.) 

Un  commentaire  samaritain  inconnu    (Genese  i  a 

xxvii,  10). —  Journal  asiatique,  1873,  341.      (Also  in 
reprint  along  with  the  preceding  article.) 

Catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  MSS  in  the  Bodleian  Li- 


brary and  in  the  College  Libraries  of  Oxford,  in- 
cluding MSS  in  other  Languages  which  are  written 
with  Hebrew  characters,  ....  and  a  fezv  Samaritan 
MSS.     Oxford,  1886. 

Neumann,  W. :  Studien  iiber  zwei  Blatter  aus  einer  alten 
samaritanischen  Pentateuchhandschrift.  In  Abhand- 
lungen  aus  dem  Jahrbuch  der  Leo-Gesellschaft,  1896. 
Vienna,  1896.  (Reviewed  Am.  Journ.  Sent.  Lang., 
xiii,  317.) 

Nicholls,  G.  J. :  A  Grammar  of  the  Samaritan  Lan- 
guage, with  Extracts  and  Vocabulary.     London,  1858. 

Nicoll,  A. :  Notitia  codicis  Samaritano-Arabici  in  Bib- 
lioth.  Bodl.  adservati  Pentateuchum  complectentis. 
Oxford,  181 7. 

and  Pusey,  W. :     Bibliothecce  Bodleiance  codicum 

manuscript orum  orientalium  catalogus.    Oxford,  1821- 

i835- 
Noeldeke,     T. :      Ueber     einige     samaritanisch-arabische 

Schriften,   die   hebrdische   Sprache   betreffend. —  Got- 
22 


338  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

linger  Gelehrte  Nachrichten,  Nos.  17,  20.  1862. 
(Also  in  separate  imprint.) 
Nutt,  J.  W. :  Fragments  of  a  Samaritan  Tar  gum  edited 
from  a  Bodleian  MS.  With  an  introduction,  contain- 
ing a  Sketch  of  Samaritan  History,  Dogma,  and  Liter- 
ature. London,  1874.  (With  an  Appendix  by  Har- 
kavy. ) 

Otho,  G. :  Synopsis  institutionum  Samaritanarum,  Rab- 
binicarum,  Mthio  pic  arum,  et  Persicarum.  Frankfurt, 
1702;  2d  ed.  1717;  3d  ed.  1735. 

Palcrstra  linguarum  orientalium.     Frankfurt,  1702. 

{Gen.  1-4  is  given  in  the  Samaritan  Hebrew  and  Sa- 
maritan Targum,  the  latter  with  Latin  translation,  and 
a  Samaritan  glossary.  The  texts  of  the  London  Poly- 
glot are  used. ) 

Paulus,  H.  E.  G. :  Commentatio  critica  exhibens  e  Bib- 
liotheca  Oxon  Bodl.  specimina  versionum  Pentateuchi 
septem  Arabic  arum.     1789. 

Zur  Geschichte  des  samaritisch-arabischen  Penta- 

teuchs.     In  his  Neues  Rcpertorium,  Jena,  1791. 

Payne-Smith,  R. :  The  Samaritan  Chronicle  of  Abu'l 
Fatch,  the  Arabic  text  from  the  MS  in  the  Bodleian 
Library  with  a  literal  English  translation. — DVJ  ii, 
303,  431.  (The  publication  was  abandoned  upon  the 
discovery  that  Vilmar  published  the  whole  text  in  that 
year,  1865  ;  see  DVJ  iv,  347.) 

Petermann,  J.  H. :    in  RE1  s.  v.  Samaritaner  (i860). 

Reisen  im  Orient,  vol.  i,  Leipzig,  i860.      (P.  233, 

Samaritan  Passover ;  p.  260,  stay  at  Nablus. ) 

Versuch  ciner  hebrdischen  Formenlehre  nach  der 

Aussprache  der  heutigen  Samaritaner  ncbst  einer  dar- 
nach  gebildeten  Transcription  der  Genesis.  In  Ab- 
handlungen  f.  d.  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes,  v,  No.  I. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  339 

Leipzig,  1868.      (Reviewed  by  Noldeke,  ZDMG  xvii, 
718.) 

—  Pentateuchus  Samaritanus  ad  fidcm  librorum  Mss. 
apud  Noblusianos  repertorum.  Berlin,  1872-1891. 
Genesis  (1872)  and  Exodus  (1882),  by  Petermann; 
the  remaining  books  were  completed  by  K.  Vol- 
lers  :  Leviticus,  1883  ;  Numbers,  1885  ;  Deuteronomy, 
1 89 1.  (This  work  gives  the  Samaritan  Targum.) 
Brevis  lingua:  Samaritancc  grammatica,  litteratura, 


chrestomathia,  cum  glossario.  {Porta  Linguariim 
Orient  aliumf)  Carlsruhe  and  Leipzig,  1873. 
Pick,  B. :  Horce  Samaritancc;  Collection  of  Various  Read- 
ings of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  Compared  zvith 
the  Hebrew  and  other  Ancient  Versions. —  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  xxxiii  (1876),  264;  533;  xxxiv,  79;  xxxv,  76; 

309- 

Plumptre,  E.  H. :  The  Samaritan  Element  in  the  Gos- 
pels and  Acts. —  Expositor,  1878,  p.  22. 

(Poncet,  M.)  :  Nouveaux  eclair  ccisscments  sur  I'origine 
et  le  Pentateuque  des  Samaritains.     Paris,  1760. 

Rappoport,  S. :  La  liturgie  samaritaine.  Office  du  soir 
des  fetes.  (Texle  samaritain  et  traduction  arabc.) 
Precede  d'une  etude  sur  la  liturgie  samaritaine.  Paris, 
1900.      (The  preface  alone  has  appeared.) 

Deux     hymnes     samaritains. —  Journal     asiatique, 

1900,  p.  289. 

Ravis,  C. :  A  Discourse  of  the  Oriental  Tongues,  via. 
Ebrew,  Samaritane,  etc.,  together  with  a  Grammar  of 
the  said  Tongues.     London,  1649. 

Reland,  H. :  Dissertationes:  iii.  De  Monte  Garizim;  vii. 
De  Samaritanis.  In  Dissertationes  miscellanea?, 
Utrecht,  1706;  2d  ed.  17 13.  Also  in  Ugolini,  Thesau- 
rus, vii;  xxii. 

Dissertationes  quatuor  de  minimis  quibusdam  vcte- 


340  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

rum  Hebrceorum  qui  ab  inscriptarum  literarum  forma 
Samaritani  appellantur.  Utrecht,  1706.  (With  a  let- 
ter from  J.  B.  Ott.  A  fifth  dissertation  published 
under  title :  De  minimis  ....  dissertationes  quin- 
que,  Utrecht,  1709.  These  reprinted,  with  a  sixth  dis- 
sertation by  R.,  and  others  by  J.  Harduin,  J.  Gagner, 
in  Ugolini,  Thesaurus,  (xxviii.) 

Palsestina,   vol.   ii,   .s.   v.   Sichem,   Utrecht,    1714; 


2d  ed.  1716. 

Roediger,  E. :  (in  Hallesche  Allgemeine  Liter  atur-Zeit- 
ung,  1845,  P-  658,  giving  Consul  E.  G.  Schultz's 
report  of  discovery  of  the  Nablus  Decalogue  inscrip- 
tion, with  plates.) 

Schlussbemerkung    iiber    die    samaritanischen   In- 

schriften. —  ZDMG    xiv     (i860),    632.       (See    also 
Blau.  ) 

Rogers,  E.  T. :  Notices  of  the  Modern  Samaritans,  illus- 
trated by  Incidents  in  the  Life  of  Jacob  esJi-Shelaby, 
Gathered  from  Him  and  Translated.     London,  1855. 

Rogers  (Miss),  E.  T. :  Domestic  Life  in  Palestine. 
(With  account  of  her  brother  Consul  Rogers'  attend- 
ance at  Samaritan  Passover  in  1862.) 

Rosen,  G. :  Ueber  samaritanische  Inschriftcn. —  ZDMG 
xiv  (i860),  622.  (With  plates  of  the  Nablus  inscrip- 
tions of  the  Decalogue  and  the  Ten  Words.) 

Ueber     Nablus     und     Umgegend. —  ZDMG     xiv 

(i860),  634.      (With  excellent  map.) 

Alte  Handschriftcn  dcs  samaritanischen  Pentateuch. 


—  ZDMG  xviii  (1864),  582.  (With  plates.) 
Rosenberg,  J. :  Lehrbuch  der  samaritanischen  Sprache 
und  Literatur.  Vienna,  1901.  (Reviewed  by 
Schwally,  Theol.  Lit.-Zcit.  1902,  No.  9.) 
de  Rossi,  J.  J. :  Specimen  variarum  lectionum  sacri  textus. 
Appendix  de  celeberrimo  Samaritano  tritaplo  sacri  tex- 
tus (p.  165).     Rome,  1782. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  341 

de  Sacy,  S. :  Litterce  Samaritanorum  ad  losephum  Scali- 
gerum  date?  ex  autographis  Parisinis.  In  Eichhorn's 
Repertorium,  xiii  (1783),  257. 

Commentarium   de   versione  Samaritana  Arabica 

librorum  Mosis.  In  Eichhorn's  Allgemcine  Bibli- 
othek,  x,  1.     Leipzig,  1800. 

Memoire  sur  I'etat  actuel  des  Samaritains.     In  An~ 

nales  des  voyages  et  de  la  geographic,  1812.  Ex- 
panded in  the  prefatory  treatise  in  N.  et  E.  xii.  Trans- 
lated into  German  in  Wachler's  Ncue  Thcologische 
Nachrichten,  Oct.  1813,  and  in  Staudlin  and  Tzschir- 
ner's  Arcliiv  f.  alte  und  neue  Kirchengeschichte ,  i,  3, 
Leipzig,  1814. 

Chrestomathie  arabe.  Paris,  1806.  (With  ex- 
tract from  Makrizi's  History  of  Egypt,  including  an 
important  section  upon  the  Samaritans.) 

Memoire  sur  la  version  arabe  des  livres  de  Mo'ise  a 

V usage  des  Samaritains  et  sur  les  manuscrits  de  cette 
version.  In  Memoires  de  V  Academic  des  Inscriptions 
et  des  Belles  Lettres,  xlix,  1.  Paris,  1808.  (En- 
larged from  Commentarium  above.) 

Correspondence  des  Samaritains  de  Naplouse,  pen- 


dant les  annees  1808  et  suivant.    In  Notices  ct  Extraits 

des  MSS  de  la  Bibliothcquc  du  Roi,  xii,    1.     Paris, 

1 83 1.     (For  contents,  see  above,  Chap.  I,  notes  14,  18.) 
St.  Clair,  G. :     The  Samaritans.     I.  Their  Number.     11. 

The  Ancient  Copy  of  the  Laiv. —  PEFQS  1888,  p.  50. 
Sampey,  J.  R. :     The  Samaritans. —  Biblical  World,  1899, 

p.  188. 
a    San    Aquilino,    A. :     Pentateuchi   Hebrceo-Samaritani 

prcustantia   in  illustrando   et  emendando   textu  maso- 

rethico.     Heidelberg,   1783. 
Scaliger,    J.    J. :     De    emendatione    temporum.     Leyden, 

1583;  1598;  Geneva,  1629,  etc. 
Schnurrer,    C.    F. :     Samaritauisclicr    Bricfivcchscl.     In 


342  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Eichhorn's  Report orium,  ix  (1781),  1.     (For  contents, 
see  above,  Chap.  I,  note  14.) 

Probe   cincs  samaritanischen  biblischen   Commen- 

tars,  ilber  1  B.  Mos.  xlix. —  Repertorium,  xvi  (1785), 

154. 

— (In  Paulus'  Memorabilien,  ii,  54,  extract  of  Abu' I 

Fath,  60—76,  Vilmar's  pagination ;  do.  in  Paulus'  Neues 
Repertorium,  i,  pp.  93-108.) 

(Translation  of  the  Samaritan  Epistles  of  1808,  in 


Mines  de  I' Orient,  i.     Vienna,  181 1.) 

Schulz,  J.  C. :  De  implacabili  Judccorum  ccque  ac  Chris- 
tianorum  in  Samaritas  odio  commentatio.  Witten- 
berg, 1756. 

Schwarz,  F.  J. :  Excrcitationcs  historico-criticcc  in 
utrumque   Samaritanum   Pentatcuchum.     Wittenberg, 

1756. 

Simon,  R. :  Antiquitates  ecclesice  orientalis.  London, 
1682.  (Contains  the  Samaritan  Epistles  to  Scaliger, 
and  the  correspondence  between  Morinus  and  P.  della 
Valle.) 

Concerning  the  Carraitcs  and  Samaritans,  written 

in  French  and  translated  into  English  (by  Simon  Ock- 
ley).  In  L.  di  Modena,  History  of  the  Present  Jews, 
1707. 

Skinner,  J. :  Notes  on  a  Newly  Acquired  Samaritan 
Manuscript. —  JQR  iv  (1902),  26. 

Smith,  W.  Robertson  :  in  Encyclopedia  Britannica,9 
s.  vv.  Samaria,  Samaritans. 

Sobernheim,  M. :  Saniaritanische  Inschriftcn  aus  Da- 
mascus.—  MDPV  viii  (1902),  70. 

Spiro,  J. :  Etude  sur  le  peuple  samaritain. —  Revue  chre- 
tienne,  v  (1897),  263. 

Spoer,  H.  H. :  Description  of  the  Case  of  the  Roll  of  a 
Samaritan  Pentateuch. —  JAOS  xxvii  (1906),  105. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  343 

Stade,   B. :    Der  Name  der  Stadt  Samariens  und  seine 

Herkunft.—  ZATW  v  (1885),  165. 
Stafford,    R.    G. :     The   Samaritan   Passover. —  PEFQS 

1903,  p.  90. 
Stanley,   A.    P. :     The  Samaritan  Passover.     Appendix 

iii  to  The  Jewish  Church,  vol.  i.     (Recorded  for  the 

year  1862.) 
Steinschneider,  M. :     Die  arabische  Litcratur  dcr  Juden. 

Frankfurt,   1902.      (For  Samaritan  Arabic  literature, 

see  p.  3i9ff.) 

Supplement  anx  catalogues  des  Mss  hcbreux  et 

samaritains  de  la  Bibl.  Imperialc. —  Zcitschrift  f.  hebr. 
Bibliographic,  vi  (1902).     Reprinted  Frankfurt,  1903. 

Stoehr,  H. :  Theoria  et  praxis  linguarum  sacrarum,  sc. 
Samaritancc,  Hebr.  et  Syr.,  earumque  harmonia. 
Augsburg,  1796. 

Taglicht,  I. :  Die  Kuthder  als  Bcobachter  des  Gesetzes 
nacli  talmudischcn  Qucllcn  nebst  Bcriicksichtigung  der 
samaritanischen  Correspondent  und  Liturgie.  Berlin, 
1888. 

Thomson,  J.  E.  H. :  The  Samaritans. — Expository  Times, 
xi  (1900),  p.  375.     (For  the  year  1898.) 

The  Samaritan  Passover. — PEFQS   1902,   p.   82. 

Trumbull,  H.  C. :     in  Oriental  Social  Life;  p.  371 :     The 

Samaritan  Passover.     Philadelphia,  1894. 
Tychsen,    O.    G. :    Disputatio   historico-philologico-critica 
dc  Pentateucho  Ebrcuo-Samaritano.     Biitzow,  1765. 

Die  Unachtheit  der  judischen  Miinzen  mit  hebrdi- 

schen  und  samaritanischen  Buchstaben.  Rostock, 
1779. 

Untersuchung  ob  R.  Saadjah  Haggaon  Verfasser 

der  arabischen  Ucbcrsetzung  des  Pentateuchs  in  den 
Polyglotten  sey. —  Eichhorn's  Rcpertorium,  xi  (1782), 
82. 


344  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Uhlemann,  F. :  Institutiones  lingua  Samaritancu  ex  anti- 
quissvmis  monumentis  erutce  et  digestcu,  quibus  ac- 
cedit  chrestomathia  Samaritana  cum  glossario.  Leip- 
zig, 1837. 

della  Valle,  P. :  Viaggi.  Rome,  1650.  A  German 
translation,  Reisebeschreibung,  Geneva,  1674;  English 
translation,  The  Travels  of  Pietro  della  Valle  in  India, 
by  Havers;  republished  by  the  Hakluyt  Society,  Lon- 
don, 1892.  The  Italian  has  also  appeared  at  Brighton, 
England,  1843. 

Verschuir,  J.  H. :  Disscrtationes  philological  exegeticoe. 
(No.  iii.  on  the  Ebal-Gerizim  question.) 

Vilmar,  E. :  Notizen  zum  Briefzuechsel  der  Samari- 
taner. —  ZDMG  xvii  (1863),  375. 

Abidfathi  annales  Samaritani.     Gotha,  1865. 

van  Vloten,  W. :     Specimen  philologicum  quod  continet 

descriptionem  cod.  MS.   Bibliothecce  Lugduno-Batava? , 
partemque  inde  excerptam  versionis  Samaritano-Ara- 
bicce  Pentateuchi  Mosaici.     Leyden,   1803. 
Vogelstein,  H. :     Sliechem  and  Bethel. —  JQR  iv  (1892), 

513^ 

de  Vogue,  M. :  Nouvelle  inscription  samaritaine  d'Am- 
was. —  Revue  bibliquc,  v  (1896),  433.  (Announcing 
Lagrange's  second  Emmaus  inscription.) 

Vollers,  K. :     see  Petermann. 

Katalog   der  islamischen,   christlkh-orientalischen, 

jiidischen  und  samaritanischen  Hss.  der  Universitats- 
Bibliothck  zu  Leipzig,  mit  einem  Beitrag  von  J.  Lei- 
poldt.     1906. 

Walton,  B. :  Biblia  Polyglotta.  London,  1657.  Pro- 
legomenon xi:  De  Samaritanis  et  eorum  Pentateucho 
eiusque  versionibus.  (The  Prolegomena  have  been 
frequently  re-published:  by  Heidegger,  Zurich,  1673; 
Dathe,  Leipzig,  1777;  Wrangham,  Cambridge,  1828.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  345 

Warren,    C. :     Underground   Jerusalem.     London,    1876. 

(Chap.  X  describes  visit  to  the  Samaritans  and  their 

Passover.) 
Watson,    W.    S. :     A    Critical    Copy    of    the   Samaritan 

Pentateuch,  written  in  A.   D.    1232. —  Hcbraica,   ix, 

216;   x,    122.      (Collation   with   Blayney's   text.     Cf. 

Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  1893,  p.  656.) 

A  Samaritan  Manuscript  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch 

written  in  A.  H.  55. —  JAOS  xx  ( 1899) ,  173.  ( Prob- 
ablv  identical  with  the  one  described  by  Rosen, 
ZDMGwm,  586.) 

Wilson,  C.  W. :  Ebal  and  Gcrizim. —  PEFQS  1876,  p. 
66.      (With  plan  of  ruins  on  Gerizim.) 

Wilson,  J.:  Lands  of  the  Bible,  Edinburgh,  1843.  (ii, 
688,  a  facsimile  of  a  Samaritan  Ketuba.) 

Winer,  G.  B. :  De  versionis  Pentateuchi  Samaritani  in- 
dole dissertatio  critico-exegctica.     Leipzig,  181 7. 

in  his  Rcalworterbuch  (ed.  3,  1848),  s.  v.  Samari- 

taner. 

Wreschner,  L. :  Samarit anise he  Traditionen  mitgeteilt 
und  nach  Hirer  geschichtlichen  Entwickelung  unter- 
sucht.     Berlin,  1888. 

Wright,  William:  (Editor  of  Oriental  Series,  London, 
1875,  of  Palseographical  Society's  Facsimiles  of  Manu- 
scripts and  Inscriptions.  Plates  xii,  xxviii,  lxxxix,  re- 
produce Samaritan  MSS.) 

( Note  on  Samaritan  tablet  in  the  Leeds  Philosoph- 
ical and  Literary  Society  Library.  With  reproduction. 
PSBA  vi  (1883),  Nov.  p.  25.) 

Wright,  W.  Aldis  :  Communication  sur  un  manuscrit 
contenant  un  fragment  du  Thargoum  samaritain. 
—  Journal  asiatique,  1870,  p.  525. 

and  Schiller-Szinnessy:     A  descriptive  List  of 

the  Arabic,  Persian,  and  Turkish  Manuscripts  in 
the  Library  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  by  E.  H. 


346  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Palmer,  with  an  Appendix  containing  a  Catalogue  of 
the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  Manuscripts  in  the  same 
Library  (by  W.  and  S.-S.).  Cambridge,  1870. 
Yung,  R. :  Toledot  Adam  (in  Hebrew).  The  Hexaglot 
Pentateuch,  with  the  Corresponding  Samaritan,  Chal- 
daic,  Syriac  and  Arabic.     (Edinburgh  ?) 

Zachariae,  J.  F. :     De  Samaritanis  eorumque  templo  in 

monte  Garisim.     Jena,  1723. 
Zotenberg,  H. :     Catalogue  des  MSS  hebreux  et  samari- 

tains  de  la  Bibliothcque  Impcriale.     Paris,  1866. 

An  Account  of  the  Samaritans  in  a  Letter  to  J.  ...  M. 
....   1714. 

Annates  de  philosophic  chretienne,  Nov.  1853.  (Contains 
the  Samaritan  memorials  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic  ad- 
dressed to  the  French  government  in  1842,  with  trans- 
lation.) 

Note  on  the  Newly  Discovered  Samaritan  Stone. —  PEFQS 
1873,  p.  118. 

The  Samaritan  Stone  at  Gaza. —  Ibid.,  157. 

//  Pentatcucho  Samaritano  e  Vautenticita  dci  libri  mo~ 
saici. —  Arc.  di  litt.  bibl.  ed  or.  v  (1883),  No.  12,  p. 
350- 

It  may  be  noticed  here  as  a  curiosity  that  on  the  Com- 
mencement Programme  of  Harvard  College  for  1771  (July, 
17)  appears  "  A  Dialogue  in  the  Samaritan  language." 
Nothing  is  now  known  concerning  the  title  or  nature  of  the 
dialogue,  nor  the  name  of  the  students  concerned.  In  the 
previous  year  a  Chaldaic  dialogue  was  given.  These  efforts 
were  the  result  of  the  impetus  given  by  the  foundation  of 
the  Hancock  Professorship  of  Hebrew  in  1764. 


INDEX  OF  BIBLICAL  REFERENCES. 


OLD  TESTAMENT 


Genesis. 
i.  I 

—  iff., 

—  2.  . 

iv.  6.. 
x.  18. 
30. 


PAGE 

223 

274 

2I4f 

288 

319 

238 

xii.  6 19 

—  8 237 

xiv.   14 288 

xx.   13 210 

xxii.    2 237 

—  13 288 

xxviii.   19 236 

xxxi.  53 210 

xxxii.    32 39 

xxxiii.    18 237,  273 

xxxiv 19,  23 

xxxv.  4 168 

—  7 210 

xlvi.    13 195 

xlviii.    16 210 

xlix.  10 248 


—  14- 


Exodus. 
iii.  6. 
xii.  6. 

—  11. 

—  23. 


288 


45 

38 

39 

276 


xx.  2ff  (Dt.  5,  6ff)  235,  273,  277 


xxii.  9 

xxiv.    iof .  . . 
xxxiv.    6ff.  . 

—  29 

xxxv.  —  xl. 

Leviticus. 
xxiii 


Numbers. 
vi.  24ff. 
ix.  gff. . 


210 
211 
212 
227 
73 


34^ 


30 
40 


PAGE 

x.  35* 273 

xi 229 

xviii.  19;  xxv.  I2f 232 

xxiv.   7 248 

Deuteronomy. 

i-  7 13 

v.    21 235 

vi.  8f 186,  277 

xi.    30 235 

xii.  4 237 

xviii.    15 243ft' 

xxiii.    3ft 181 

xxiv.    iff 42 

xxv.  Sff 43.  184 

xxvii 16,  35 

—  5 235,  273 

xxxiii.    15 236 


Joshua. 

iv 

viii.  3off.  . 
xi.  16. . . . 
xii.  20..  . . 
xxiv.   29ff. 

—  33 

Judges. 
ix 

—  4,  46... 

-.7ff 

xviii.   30. . 

I.  Samuel. 
xxxi.  10.  . 

I.  Kings. 
xii 

—  31 


,16, 


36 
35 
13 

3^7 
16 

230 


23 
16 
18 
67 


143 


23 

49 


xvi.  24 I3»  3ic 


II.  Kings. 
xv.  19L 
xvii.  . . . 
—  29... 


..  50 
,1,  48ff 
..  318 


347 


348 


BIBLICAL  INDEX 


PAGE 

xviii.   34 52 

xxiii 56 

I.  Chronicles. 

ix.  3,  5 74 

II.  Chronicles. 

xxx.  xxxiii.   11 55 

Ezra. 

i-iii 61 

»i.    3 58 

iv.    1 59 

—  2 Si 

—  3 182 

—  9f 52 

ix-x 64 

Nehemia. 

iii 144 

iv.  2 58 

vi.  3 144 

x 65 

xi.  25ff 144 

xiii.   28f 66 

Psalms. 

xvi 74 

xlvi 238 

lx.  8-14 :  lxxx 74 

lxxxii 215 

Proverbs. 
iii.    19 209 

Isaia. 

ii.    iff 236 

vii.  8 51 

xix.   9 72 

xxviii.  1 155 

lvii.  3ff;  lxv.  iff;  lxvi.  iff..  7of 

Jeremia. 

iii S3 

iii.    6ff 15,    47 

xiii 238 

xxxi.   xxxiii.    7 53 

xli.  4ff 56,     60 

Ezekiel. 

xxviii.    I3.T;   xlvii 238 


page 
Daniel. 
iv.  32 216 

Hosea. 

iii-  4 50 

vi.  9 23 

vin.    4 54 

Joel. 
ii.  31 240 

Zecharia. 

xj.    14 74 

xiv 238 

Malachi. 
iv.   sf 240,  247 

APOCRYPHA 

II.    ESDRAS. 

iv.   10 318 

ECCLESIASTICUS. 
1-  25f 154 

I.  Maccabees. 

xi.  2off 144 

II.  Maccabees. 

v.   23 78 

vi.    2 yj 

NEW  TESTAMENT 

Matthew. 

x.  sf 162 

xxiv.  29ft" 249 

Mark. 
xiv.    62 215 

Luke. 

ix.  5iff 158,  162 

x.   25ff 161 

xvii.  nff 160 

John. 

iii.  22f 160 

iv 157 

—  5 2of,  156 


BIBLICAL  INDEX 


349 


iv.    7. . 

—  igff. 

—  25.. 

—  42.. 
viii.  48 
xi.  54.. 


PAGE 

•  158 
.    l6l 

•  243 
.    250 

•  155 

•  144 


Acts. 

i.   8 163,  178 

iii.    21 247 

vii.   16 107 

—  48ff 71 

viii.    iff 163,    265ff 

—  10 215 

ix.  31 ;  xv.  3 164 


Romans. 
viii.    39- 


page 
Galatians. 
iii.    19 220 


Ephesians. 
i.  21 


I.  Timothy. 
vi.     15 


216 


215 


Hebrews. 
i.  14;  xii.  22f 216 

Revelation. 

xvii.  14 215 

xxi.    1 210 


218 


INDEX  OF  TALMUDIC  CITATIONS   REFERRING 
TO  THE  SAMARITANS. 

Under  each  Tractate  are  given  the  references:  (i)  to  the  Mishna; 
(2)  to  the  Babylonian  Gemara;  (3)  to  the  Jerusalem  Gemara;  (4) 
to  the  Tosefta.  Doubtful  references  to  the  Samaritans  are  inter- 
rogated. 


PAGE 

Aboda  Zara,  15.  .172,  174,  198,  199 

26 171,  191.  199.  203 

31 l73,  203 

Jer.   7 199 

44 

168,  173,  I77>  191,  !92,  198 
202,  203,  318 

Tos.  iii.  9 l69 

iii.  1 174.  199 

Baba  Kamma,  38 

175,  177.  181,  190,  201 
Berakot,  vii.  1 166,  172 

viii.  8 166,  172 

47 170,  172,  179,  183 

Jer.    11 191 

Cholin,  3-6 

169,  171,  172,  190,  191,  192,  318 
Demai,  iii.  4 166,  178 

v.   9 166 

vi.    1 166,  178 

vii.    4 166,183 

Jer.  9 170 

25 I9i 

- —  Tos.  iii.  3 l83.  T98 

Erubin,  41   (?) 193 

Gittin,  i.  5 166,  185 

10 170,  171 

45 150,  193 

Jer,43 ••■  V* 

Ketubot,  111.  1 100,  101 

Jer.  27 170,  191 

Kiddushin,  iv.  3 166,  181 

75-76 

169,  170,  171,  177,  179,  181 
185,  186,  190,  198,  203 


KUTIM,  PAGE 

Chap.  XI ;  Chap.  X,  passim. 

Makkot,   8 201 

Megilla,  Jer.   71 281,  283 

Menachot,  42 171,  187 

Mikwaot,  Tos.  vi.  1 173 

Nedarim,  iii.  10 166,  170 

Nidda,    iv.    1 166,179 

2 166,  188 

vii.  3 166,   170,  173 

4 166,  179,  200 

5 166,  173 

57 I70 

■  74 181 

Ohalot,   xvii.    3 166 

Tos.  xviii.  16 194 

Orla,  Jer.,  Gem.  to  ii.  6 203 

Pea,  ii.  7   (?) 166 

Tos.  2 191 

iv.  1 174.  198 

Pesachim,  50  seq 200 

Tos.  2 203 

Rosh   ha-Shana,  ii.  2...  166,  193 

Sanhedrin,   21 280 

63 320 

90 186 

Shebiit,  viii.  10 166,  190 

Shekalim,  i.  5 166,  182,  197 

SOTA,     22 193 

Sota,   33 169,  235 

Jer.  21 281 

Taanit,   5    (?) 320 

Teruma,  iii.  9 166,  182 

Tohorot,  v.  8 166,  178 

Yebamot,    47 180 

Jer.  3 169 


350 


BRIEF  INDEX  OF  LITERARY   REFERENCES   TO 

THE    SAMARITANS  IN    ANCIENT    AND 

MEDIEVAL    LITERATURE. 

(Exclusive  of  Biblical,  Talmudic  and    Samaritan   Sources.) 


JEWISH. 

PAGE 

Benjamin  of  Tudela 136 

Bereshit  Rabba 

91,   168,   194,  238,  318 

Debarim  Rabba 168 

Josephus 75-8i,  82- 

88,  144,  145,  I56ff,  243,  254,  319 

Megillat  Taanit 79 

Meshullam    b.   Menahem 137 

Nachmanides    280 

Obadia  of  Bertinoro 137 

Pirke  R.  Eliczer 194,  254,  283 

Sifre  169,  186 

Tanchuma  194,  254,  283 

Testament  of  Levi 155 

Yalkut  254 

pagan. 
Lampridius 96 

CHRISTIAN. 

Acts  of  2d  Nicene  Council. . .  121 

Apostolic   Constitutions 267 

Bar-Hebrccus    {Abu'l    Faraj) 

49,  94,  114 

von  Boldensele   3 

Cassiodorus  Senator 152 

Cedrenus    101,    114,    121 

Chronicon  Paschalc.  .110,  114,  118 

Clementine  Homilies  256 

Clementine  Recognitions.  .255,  256 

Codex  Justinianus 

114,  118,  119,  152 

Novella 119,  120,  122 

Codex  Theodosianus.  105,  108,  109 

Novella 109 

Cotovicus  3 

Cyrillus    Scythopolitanus 114 

Epiphanius   89, 

216,  250,  253,  257,  281,  285,  318 


PAGE 

Eulogius   245,  258 

Eusebius   252,  318 

Eutychius  114 

George  Syncellus   286 

Hcgcsippus     252,  255 

Hippolytus 255 

Irenceus    266 

Jerome.  .94,  255,  256,  281,  286,  318 
John  of  Damascus. .  .164,  266,  267 

Malalas    114,   117,  121 

Mandeville  3 

Nicetas   252 

Origen 93  97, 

250,  256,  258,  281,  285,  286,  318 
Peter  the  Iberian,  Life  of ... .   148 

Philastcr  250,  255 

Procopius    

no,  in,  113,  114,  117,  119,  122 

Socrates  101 

Tertullian    (pseudo-)    255 

Theodoret    213,  253 

Theophanes     

101,   114,   117,   119,  121 

MUSLIM. 

Abu'l  Fida 17,  259 

Alt  of  Herat 136 

al-Biruni 136,   152,  320 

Dimashki    136 

Ibn   Chaukal 135 

Ibn  Chasm 138 

Idrisi   136,   151 

Istakhri 135 

Makrizi 136,  259,  305 

Masudi  135,  259,  304 

Mohammed    (Koran} 152 

Mukaddasi    18,  148 

Mutanabbi   152 

Shahrastani  136,  2S9f 

Yakubi 135,  148 

Yakut   136 


351 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


A 

PAGE 

Aaron  229 

Abar-Nahara    59 

Abbahu,  R 192 

Abbaside  dynasty 127ft 

Abdallab  ibn  Tahir 128 

Abel    224 

Ab  Geluga    298 

Abimelek  23 

Abishua,  see  Codex  of 

Abraham  19,  37,  231 

Abu      Ischak      Ibrahim      ibn 

Faraj   311 

Abu'l  Barakat  293 

Abu'l  Chasan  of  Tyre.... 293,  298 

Abu'l  Chasan  ibn  Gazal 313 

Abu'l  Faraj    ibn  Ischak 296 

Abu'l  Fath  305ft 

Abu  Said  293,  311 

Adam   37,  224,  237 

Adrammelek,  Anammelek. . . .     53 

Ages  of  the  World 241  f 

Akiba,  R i89ff 

Akko,    Samaritans   at 148 

Akrabatta     145,  147 

Aleppo,  Samaritans  at 149 

Alexander  the  Great.  .67ft,  76,  302 

Alexander  Jannaeus 80 

Alexander  Polyhistor  284 

Alexander  Severus 95 

Alfaniya     259 

Alphabet,    Samaritan 277 

Ame,  Assi,   RR 191 

al-Amwas,  see  Emmaus 

Am-ha-areg 60,  64,  178 

Anastasius    113 

Angels  2i5ff 

Antiochus    Epiphanes 77f 

Antipatris  145,  147 

Antoninus    Pius    93 

Anuath  145 

Anusa   (angel)    219 

352 


PAGE 

Aphairema     (and     see     Eph- 

raim,   city) 144 

Arabic,   language,   versions... 

272,  293,  315 

Aramaic,  language 

270,  291,  303,  314 

Arrhidaeus,    Philip    76 

Arsuf,  Samaritans  at 

127,   128,  148 

Asenappar 52 

Ashima 53,  213,  321 

Ashkelon,  Samaritans  at 

127,  137,  148 

Askar,    Ain- 2of 

Asshurbanapal  52 

Athens,    Samaritans    at 152 

Atonement,  Day  of 41 

Awurta    147 

Azazel    219 

B 

Baal-bek,    Samaritans   at 149 

Baba   Rabba    ioiff 

Babylonia,  Samaritans  in 150 

Baibars 133 

Barberini   Triglot    290,293 

Barges,  J 10 

Bar-Kokeba  90,  189 

Beit-Dagon  148 

Belial  (demon)   219 

Benediction,  prayer  of 171 

Benjamin,   tribe   32,  149 

Benjamin  of  Tudela...2,  136,  138 

Bethel  49,  56,  236 

Beth-horon 144,  148 

Beth-shean    143 

Bethulia     144 

Bet-Kilkalta    194 

Betrothal   186 

Boethusians    40 

von  Boldensele,   W 3 


GENERAL  INDEX 


353 


PAGE 

Booths,  Feast  of 41 

Bordeaux  Pilgrim 20,  135 

Borkeos   79,  144*,  146 

Boule,  Samaritan   87 

Burial  customs   43 


Caesarea    84, 

in,  115,  121,  127,  134,  137,  148 

Cairo,  Samaritans  at 4,  :5i 

Calendar,  Samaritan.  ..  .3,  33,  312 

Caracalla   96 

Carmel,   Samaritans  on 

121,  143,  148 

Castellus,   E 8 

Cellarius,  C 8 

Chaber    179 

Chalisa    43,  173 

Charat  as-Samara   24 

Cherubim    216,  221 

Chizn  Yakub  (synagogue) 

29,  134,  273 

Chosroes  II 123 

Chronicles,   Samaritan   30off 

Chronicle  Abu'l  Fath...i25,  30Sff 

Chronicle  Adler 125,  307 

Chronicle  Neubauer  ....125,  3001 
Christian  Church  and  Samari- 
tans  98ft,   iooff,  ii8ff,  163 

Church  of  St.  Mary  on  Geri- 

zim  36,  113 

Circumcision..  .42,  90,  93,  102,  170 

Cleobius 267 

Cleodemus-Malchus   284 

Cleopatra     80 

Codex  of  Abishua   

8,  29,  41,  234,  287 

Coins  of  Neapolis  89 

Colonists  in  Samaria 49ft 

Commodus    93 

Constans   101 

Constantine  the  Great 99 

Constantius     100 

Coponius   84 

Cotovicus    3 

Covenants,  the  Seven 232 

Creation    22 iff 

Creed,  Samaritan   207 

Crusades  I3iff 

Cumanus   85 


PAGE 

Cyril  of  Scythopolis   113 

Cyrus   61 

D 

Da'ac 281  f 

Dabarin    147 

Damascus,  Samaritans  at. . . . 

4,  136,  138,  149,  277,  313,  316 

Darius    61 

Darius  Codomannus       66 

Day  of  Gerizim 79 

Decius    96f 

Defilement,   laws   of 43,  173 

Defne    305 

Demetrius  III 80 

Demetrius  Poliorcetes 75 

Deportation  of  Israel  48ff 

Diaspora  of  Samaritans....   148 ff 

Diocletian    97 

Divorce   42,   173,  185 

Dositheus,   Dositheans 252$ 

Dove-cult   6,   169,320 

Druzes    130 

Dusis    255 

Dustan,   Dustaniya    254,  259 

E 

Ebal 17,  34f,  235 

Eden,  Garden  of 224,  238 

Egypt,  Samaritans  in 

4,  75ff,  i36f,  151,  316 

Eldad,  Medad   229 

Eleazar 23of 

Eleazar  b.  Amram   300,  306 

Eleazar  b.   Phineas    312 

Eli   236 

Elon  More    (and  see  More).   147 
Emmaus,  Samaritans  at.  .148,  275f 

En-gannim  85,  145,  147,  158 

En-Kushit     146 

Enoch     224 

Enosh    219,  224 

En-socher    147 

Ephraim,  city   79,  144 

Ephraim,   Highland  of 13 

Epistles,  Samaritan  4ft 

Erub   33,  170,  187 

Esarhaddon    51,     59 

Eschatolopy    239 


354 


GENERAL  INDEX 


PAGE 

Essenes  252,  263 

Euphrates   (on  Gerizim ") 238 

Eupolemus    284 

Exegesis,   Samaritan   44 

Ezra    631 

Ezra-Nehemia,   Book 57ft 

F 

Fall,  doctrine  of 224 

Falsifications  of  Pentateuch. . 

169,  235 

Fara,  Wady 19,  238 

Fatimide   Caliphs    130 

Finn,  E.  T 10 

Fire-purifications     319 

Firkovitch,  A iof 

Flood    238 

Fondeka      of     Ammuda,      of 

Tibta     146 

Foods  as  Kosher. . .  172,  185,  i9off 
France 8,  141 

G 

Gabinius,    Gabinians    82 

Gashmu    65 

Gaza,  Samaritans  at 

4,   127,   148,  276f 

Gazal   ibn  Abu(l)    Sarur 296 

Gazal  ibn  Duwaik 296 

Galilee,  Samaritans  in 150 

Gerar,   Samaritans   at 149 

Gerizim    

17,  19.  34ff.  85.  86,  91,   106, 
in,    117,    I35ff,    176,    234ff,  240 

Germanus,  bishop  ioif 

Gibeon    . 144 

Ginaia,  see  En-gannim. 

Gittai,  Gittaim    146,  266 

Gleaning  laws   174 

Gnosticism    209ff,  267ft 

God,  doctrine  of 207ft; 

God,  names  of 213ft' 

Gola     61,    63 

Good    Friday    Collect 109 

Gordian    96 

Gorothenians    252f 

Grammatical  works  311 

Great  Britain  141 

Great   Congregation,   the 194 


PAGE 

Great  Plain 147 

Gregoire,  H 8f 

H 

Hadid   i44f 

Hadrian    90ft 

Haggai 62 

Hakim    130 

Hamath    48,  149 

Har  Kadim  237f 

Harun    ar-Rashid    127 

Hazor,  Samaritans  at 151 

Heaven   223,  251 

Hebrew  language  270 

Heliogabalus    96 

Hellenistic  literature  

283,  303,  314 

Heraclius     123 

Herod  the  Great 82ft,    92 

Hezekia    55 

Highpriest   (and  see  Priest) 

29,  31,  66ff,  71,  139,  309 

Honorius  107 

Horon,  see  Beth-horon 

Hosea 15 

Huntington,  R 6 

Hymns ._ 298ft 

Hypostatizations    209 

I 

Ibrahim  ibn  Yakub 295 

Inscriptions     29,  272ft 

Isaac    231,  237 

Ishar,  Wady 145 

Islam  and  the  Samaritans. .   125ft 
Isma'il  ar-Rumaichi 297 

J 

Jacob 231 

Jacob's  Well..  17,  21,  79f,  107,  157 

Jamnia,  Samaritans  at 148 

Jasara    (demon)    219 

Jesus  and  the  Samaritans.  .   157ft 
Jews,     attitude    towards    Sa- 
maritans   53,  61, 

62,   yi,   76,   82ft,    154,    158,  165ft 

Joppa,  Samaritans  at 

127,  148,  152 


GENERAL  INDEX 


355 


PAGE 

Joseph    231 

Joseph,  tribe 32 

Joseph's  Tomb  44>  I07 

Josephus   68,  I56f 

Josephus  b.  Gorion   310 

Joshua  244,  248 

Joshua,    Samaritan    Book    of 

3.  30iff 

Josia   55f 

Juda  ha-Nasi  191 

Judith,  Book  74,  H4 

Julian,  emperor    9°,  104 

Julian,  son  of  Sabar 115 

Justa,  Justasa no 

Justin  II 121,  I22ff 

Justin  Martyr   164 

Justinian  113^ 

K 

Kabbala   (angel)    219,223 

Kabbalism  2ioff,  269 

Kabod    209 

Kaddishin   182 

Kador    146 

Kalaun  134 

Kefar-Outhenai  145 

Kefar-Pagesh 146 

Kefar-Saba   147 

Kefar-Shalem    146 

Kefar-Sima,    Samaritans    at..   149 

Karaites 40,   137,   ^7,  296 

Kharezmians    133 

Kibla   30,  236 

Kippur   41 

Kurawa    147 

Kuryat-Hajja 147 

Kushaniya 259 

Kutha    48,     52 

Kuthim 161,  196,  318 

L 

Lapaya   23 

Law.  the   29ff,  222,  232 ff 

Leontopolis,  temple  at 72 

Levirate  marriage.  ..  .43,    185,  187 

Libonsean   281  f 

Libraries    1 1 

Lion-converts  176 

Liturgy    297ff 


PAGE 

Ludolf,  J 7 

Luza   236 

Lydda,  Samaritans  at 

79,  127,  I44f,  148 

M 

Maamun    128 

Mabartha    20 

Machmud  1 139 

al-Machna    17,    21 

Madaba,  mosaic  map  of 20 

Mahdi,   caliph    127 

Maimonides    T95 

Maiumas    127,  148 

Mamluk  dynasty   133^ 

Manasse,  king 55 

Manasse,   schismatic  priest..     66f 

Mandeville,  J 3 

Marcian  m 

Marda    147 

Marinus  285 

Marka 103,  294ff 

Marriage    42,    I79ff 

Marshall,   T 6 

Masbothseans 252 

Maundrell,  H 5 

Medical     science 313 

Mehableh   (demon)    219 

Meir,  R 189ft 

Memra,  the    209 

Menander    267 

Meronot     144 

Messiah,  doctrine  of 242ft 

Messiah-ben-Joseph    243f 

Mezuzot    32,  186 

Microcosm    224 

Midrashim,   Jewish    165 

Millennium    242,  249 

Mizpa   60 

Modin    145 

Mohammed     126 

Mohammed   IV 139 

Mohammed  (Mehemet)  Ali..   140 

Mongols    133 

More  (and  see  Elon-More)  . .  237 

Moria    37,  237 

Morison,   A 6 

Moses    225ff 

Mountain  of  the  World 236 

Muhadhdhib  ad-Din 149,  313 


356 


GENERAL  INDEX 


PAGE 

Munajja  ibn  Sadaka 296 

Music,  Samaritan 31 

Mutasim    129 

Mutawakkil    129 

Muwaffik    ad-Din 313 

N 

Nabich    301,  304 

Nablus     (and     see     Shcchem, 

Neapolis) 4,  131  ff,  135ft,  153 

Nablus,   description 22ff 

Nablus,  name 17 

Nachmanides    280 

Nathanael    (Dositheus). .  .262,  292 

Nazirite    rule 32 

Neapolis    (and   see   Shechem, 

Nablus)    17,  20,  896° 

Nebuchadrezzar    302 

Nedabot,  Nedarim   182 

Nehemia   64ft 

New  Moon  Feast 42 

New    Testament,    Samaritans 

in    I56ff 

New   Year's   Day 4of 

Nicaea,  2d  Council  of 121 

Nicanor,   Gates  of gii,  108 

Niger  Pescennius  94 

Nikaso    66 

Noah     224 

O 

Ono   I44f 

Ophra-Ferata     147 

Othman    1 134 

P 

Panuta,  Age  of 24if 

Papyrus    Anastasi  1 19 

Parable  of  Good  Samaritan..   160 

Passover    10,    37ft,  171 

Patriarchs,     Tombs     of     the 

Twelve    16,  107 

Paul  of  Gaza 149 

Paula    107 

de    Peiresc 4,290 

Pentateuch,  date  of 67,     73 

Pentateuch,     Samaritan     He- 
brew    4f,  3of,  286ff,  313 

Penuel  (angel) 219 


PAGE 

People  of  the  Book 141 

Persea,  Samaritans  in 149 

Perdiccas    75 

Persecutions  of  Samaritans. . 

90iT,  gSff,  I39ff,  152 

Petermann,  J.   H 10 

Pherka   147 

Philip    Arabs 96 

Phineas    23of 

Phineas   ibn    Joseph 299,  306 

Pilate    86 

Piraton    147 

Polygamy    42 

Polyglots,  the  i/aris  and  Lon- 
don   287,  290 

Pompey    80 

Pre-existence   of   Moses....  227ft 
Priests,    Priesthood    (and  see 

Highpriest)    

49.  I39>   181  ff,   190,  230 

Proselytes    ^77^ 

Ptolemy  Lagi 75f 

Ptolemy    Lathyrus 80 

Purim,  Samaritan 42 

R 

Ra'ac.  281  f 

Radhi    125,  129 

Ramathaim    79,  144 

Ramie    148 

Redemption   of  first  born....     42 
Red    Sea    island,    Samaritans 

on  151 

Reland,  H 8 

Resurrection,   doctrine   of.... 

176,  186,  239,  250,  263 

Ridhwan,  Age  of 241  f 

Robinson,  E 10 

Roman  law  in  re  Samaritans 

9off,  I04ff 

Rome,  Samaritans  in 152 

Rosen,  G 10 

S 

Saadya     293 

Saba  of  Scythopolis 116 

Sabbseus     76,  254 

Sabbath     23,  170 

de  Sacy,  S 7ff 


GENERAL  INDEX 


357 


Sadaka  ibn  Munajja.296,  307,  313 

Sadducees    72,  i86ff 

Safed,  Samaritans  at 151 

Safra,  Mount,  near  Mecca...  237 

Sakhra,  the,  on  Gerizim 36f 

Saladin     132 

Salich  ibn  Sadaka 296 

Salem  128,  1461,  237 

Salim    160 

Samaria,  city 

48,  51,  75ff,  80,  82ff,  86,  89 
Samaria,  land,  136°,  7Sff,  83 f,  i43ff 
Samaria,   Samaritans,  names,  3i7f 

Samaria,  village  in  Egypt 151 

Samaritan  Woman,  the 157 

Samaritans,    modern 24ff,  152ft 

Samaritikon    285 

Sammon,  bishop 116 

Sanballat  58,  65,  66ff,  302 

de  Sancy,    A 4 

Sargon    49ff 

Sartaba,   Mount 145,  193 

Sassanian    Kingdom 96,  117 

Scaliger,  J.  J. 3 

Script,    Samaritan 272ft 

Scythopolis     (and    see    Beth- 

shean)    115,  149 

Sebaste     (and     see    Samaria, 

city)    83 

Sebuaeans    252ft 

Second    Passover 40 

Sects    252ft 

Sephar   238 

Sepharwaim    48,     52 

Septimius  Severus 94 

Serapis    92 

Shalmaneser   IV 49 

Shaubak    301,304 

Shechem    (and    see   Neapolis, 

Nablus)    

4,  i6ff,  19ft,  70,  79f,  89,  146, 

194,  321 

Shechem,   site 19ft 

Shekina    209 

esh-Shelaby,    Jacob 10,  139 

Shema,  the 207 

Sheshbazzar 61 

Shilo     248 


PAGE 

Simon  b.   Gamaliel 189ft 

Simon  Magus 163,  254,  265ft' 

Siricius     285 

Spirit  of  God 210,  229 

Spirits,    evil 219 

Stay  of  Moses,  Feast  of 40 

Sychar    aof 

Symmachus   77  ■>  285 

Synagogue,    Samaritan. .  .28ft,    89 

T 

Tabernacle    239 

Taeb  (and  see  Messiah) 246ft 

Talith   32 

Talmud   165ft 

Targum    5,  290ft 

Tartak     53 

Tell-Amarna    tablets 19 

Temple,    Samaritan 

36,  67,  88,    hi,   H2f 

Ten   Words  of  Creation 274 

Tephillin     32,  186 

Terebinthus,    bishop no 

Teruma    182 

Theodosius    (Dositheus)    76 

Theodosius    1 104ft 

Theodosius    II 109ft 

Theodotus    13.  284 

Theodotion    77,  292 

Theology,    Samaritan 204ft 

Thersila    149 

Tirathana   85,  146 

Tithes I74>  183 

Tobia  the   Ammonite 65 

Tobit,  Book... 48 

Tripoli,   Samaritans  at 149 

Tul-Karam   147 

Tulluza    147 

Tur-berik 135,  194,  235 

Twelve  Stones,  the 36 

Tyre,    Samaritans    at 149 

U 

Umayyad    dynasty 127 

Unleaven,  Feast  of 40 

Usertesen   III 321 

Usgate,    J 8 


358 


GENERAL  INDEX 


V  PAGE 

Valens    104 

della  Valle,  P 4,  286,  290 

Verus    Commodus 94 

Vespasian    86,  89 

Vitellius    86 

W 

Wathik    129 

Weeks,  Feast  of 40 

Women,  Samaritan.  .32,  i/9ff,  178 

Word  of  God 209 

Y 

Yarmuth,  battle  of 126 


PAGE 

Yasuf    147 

Yebna    148 

Yhwh 213 

Yibbam    185 

Yusnf  ibn  Salama 296 

Z 

Zaita    128,  147 

Zecharia 62 

Zeno  noff 

Zerubbabel    62,  302 

Zeus    Hellenios. .. 78 

Zeus  Xenios - TJ 

Zilpa    (angel) 219 

Zohar  Sarmasa 126 


Princeton   Theological   Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01113  5078 


